Lords Sitting of 16 June 1988

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been red earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Hereford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EC Consumer Policy: Progress
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on matters discussed and progress made at the European Consumer Affairs Council held on 7th June, with particular reference to the Commission report on the integration of consumer policy in the other common policies put forward by the Commission.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Consumer Council agreed conclusions which call on the Commission to step up its efforts on the integration of consumer policy in other policy areas. It also agreed a resolution on consumer involvement in standards making but a decision to extend the system for the rapid exchange of information on dangerous products was deferred. Commissioner Varfis drew attention to progress in launching the child safety campaign.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I welcome the Council resolution and the decision to improve consumer involvement in the standardisation process. As the committees involved have many voluntary workers, are the Government willing to provide the extra resources necessary to make this a success? In regard to the child safety campaign about which I have asked the Minister before, can he tell the House the steps the Government intend to take to initiate this campaign and whether it will involve the voluntary workers and the media as well as the statutory services?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with regard to the noble Baroness's first point on the resources required, the Government believe that the Commission should reallocate existing resources if this is necessary. The Council's conclusions explicitly made this point.
On the noble Baroness's second point, the Government have made it clear that they are willing to participate in some form of child safety campaign provided that it is properly targeted and well thought through. The current proposals are a considerable improvement on the original ideas. However, any decisions on the scope of the campaign must await the outcome of further discussions.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Government continue to press the Commission to produce practical proposals in its report, requested by June 1989 in the Council resolution?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government will do everything they can to continue to encourage the Commission to produce the report in good time. The
370
noble Baroness, Lady Burton, will know the disappointment the Government felt at the previous rather inconclusive proposals. I know that the noble Baroness herself was disappointed. We welcome the pressure that has been brought to bear by the conclusions from the Council and we hope that this will lead to a more constructive way forward ready for June 1989.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am not quite clear what the Minister said about the child safety campaign. Does he recall telling me not so long ago that the Government could not take any steps in this respect and that it was a matter for the Commission? Am I not correct in saying that the Commission has now decided that each country should be responsible for initiating its own campaign? If that is correct, what do the Government propose to do about it?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that the Commission has now produced a revised set of proposals for the child safety campaign. These are being considered and will be discussed by officials from all member states later this month. As regards what will happen in this country, I can tell the noble Baroness that it will be essential to involve the enforcement authorities and voluntary organisations with an interest in this area and that all these matters will come together when we discuss the detailed planning.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, am I right in assuming that the EC has already designated this year as Child Safety Year? If that is so, should we not do something before this year is over?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the issue of child safety has been under discussion in the Commission for a long time. We should like to see something come forward as soon as possible. The noble Lord will be aware that the original proposals were not feasible or practical; but we want to see as soon as possible a campaign that will be both beneficial and of lasting effect.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if the House will bear with me, am I not correct in saying that the Commission tabled a letter which said that the child safety campaign would definitely be introduced in September or October of this year? If that is the case, do the consultations about which the Minister has just told us put that further off, or will the matter be taken forward very soon?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we hope that it will be as soon as possible. But, as I have already said, this has been slow in coming forward. For the past two years I have been answering the noble Baroness's questions on the subject. We have both been hopeful of being able to work towards a date. This has slipped back on a number of occasions, but I hope that by this autumn we should be in a position to make some progress.

Drugs Misuse: Report
3.7 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of their response to the report of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, what further advice they have received from that body.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government have welcomed the advice on AIDS and drug misuse contained in the report of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs. We have responded to a number of its recommendations and are looking in detail at others.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I was asking a slightly different Question from that which he has answered. I was asking whether the Government had received further advice from the advisory committee or from its working party, and if so what their response to it had been. Do I take it from what the Minister has said that the Government have not received any advice since the publication of the report from the committee?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct in that we have not received a reply to our response to the report of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs. If we do so we shall look at it carefully.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I must confess to some surprise at that answer as both the committee and its working party have met since the report was published. In view of the urgency of the matter and the need for public education will the Minister consider asking the committee whether it has any advice? If it gives advice, will the Government publish it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is difficult to say precisely what the Government's action will be until we have received a reply to our response.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may emphasise the urgency of the recommendations in the report and express consternation that either there has not been a reply or a reply has not been sent to the department. If there is a reply with further recommendations, will the Minister kindly find out about it because this is urgent? Is he aware that one of the main conclusions of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs was that HIV is a greater threat to public health than drugs abuse? In the light of that will he give a little more information on, first, departmental support for GP services as recommended by the report; and, secondly, on the recommendations of the report on the identification of drug misusers in prison?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may just clear up the situation with regard to the ACMD report on AIDS and drugs misuse. The report was published on 29th March and copies of it have been
372
made widely available to health and local authorities and also to interested professional organisations. As the Government's response indicated, some of the recommendations in the report require detailed consultation with interested agencies and consideration is currently being given to what further action should be taken.
As regards the situation in prisons, I rather suspect that the noble Lord was referring especially to the provision of condoms. That is a matter for my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the tone of the Government's response to these questions gives rise to considerable concern. Does the noble Earl not agree that drugs misuse by those who inject drugs is one of the main channels of conveyance of HIV infection into the community? Further, does he not agree that the advisory council recommended the setting up of drugs crisis intervention units at fixed points in the cities and, I think, on a mobile basis throughout the country, which will require funding? Will the Government give urgent attention to these most important matters?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the latest stage of the Government's drugs prevention campaign, which was launched last September in conjunction with anti-injecting publicity, was largely heroin specific and was aimed at young people who might be tempted to use drugs. It warned them that doing so might well start a process of decline which could result in crime, deteriorating health and even injecting drug use and AIDS. Independent evaluation shows that negative beliefs about heroin, identified in previous stages, have been consolidated and resistance to trial remains high.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am still a little concerned over the lack of urgency about the recommendations and the response to them. I should like to help the Minister as to the two recommendations about which I asked for some report.
First, there was the recommendation that within the prison system the prison department should be asked to identify drugs misusers and that it should encourage them to identify themselves. Secondly, there was the support that health authorities and the department should give to general practitioners, thereby recognising their importance in the whole HIV situation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the points he has made on the matter. It is something that I shall be obliged to refer to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I must confess to being a little disappointed by the reply to my last question. I asked the noble Earl, as I am sure he will recollect, whether the Government would publish the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs. Does the noble Earl agree that public education is extremely important in this whole area? Further, can he give me one good reason why a report

373
to the Government of an expert committee such as this should be kept secret?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must make it quite clear that the Government have already published the ACMD's report and their response to it.

Emergencies: Training of Volunteers
3.13 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What funds are or will be available this financial year to enable local authorities to train volunteers for dealing with peacetime emergencies.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, no central government funds are specifically available for training volunteers for peacetime emergencies. However, we estimate that local authorities spent about £1 ·75 million in 1987–88 on training volunteers for civil defence. Expenditure is likely to be similar in 1988–89. Under the provisions of the Civil Protection of Peacetime Act, resources which are provided for civil defence purposes may also be used for peacetime emergencies.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. May I ask whether the Government accept that volunteers have an important part to play in major peacetime emergencies—especially if an incident such as that at Chernobyl should occur again—but that they need to be trained for the purpose? Is he further aware that some local authorities appear to consider that they do not need to enlist and train volunteers for peacetime purposes? What is the Government's attitude to that situation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that such volunteers are an integral and most important part of any civil defence or peacetime emergency. Of course the local authorities must make up their own minds as to how best they can use the volunteers in their region. They can do this by keeping in touch with the voluntary organisations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that civic pride and initiative are being retarded throughout the country by the Government's policy of demoting local authorities? Is this not therefore a wonderful opportunity for the Government to make specific grants, for the purpose mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in order once again to encourage civic pride and to let authorities have some status?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would not expect me to agree with his quite fallacious remark that the Government are injuring the pride of local authorities. We have always taken the view that civil defence and the protection of people in peacetime are very much matters for the local authorities.
The Government have produced a planned programme of implementation upon which we have
374
invited local authorities to tell us how they are progressing. Indeed, they will be doing precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes; namely, responding to the reactions in their areas.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if local authorities are invited to get ready for emergencies of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out could easily happen and at the same time are under severe pressure in deciding the priorities on which to spend their money, surely some positive encouragement by the Government in doing what the noble Lord has asked will go a long way.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, some £22 million is already spent on civil defence. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—if he will contain himself for half a moment—will know that any requirements for civil defence can also be used for peacetime emergencies. Therefore, the structure required is already there.
I explained to my noble friend Lord Renton, in answer to his Question, that it was estimated that some £1 ·75 million had been spent on the training of volunteers during the past year. Further, it is anticipated that the proposed expenditure for this year is likely to be about the same. Therefore, work is in progress and expenditure has been allocated. The question is whether the local authorities are best placed to carry it out; I believe that they are.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many local authorities who regard civil defence as a joke? Therefore, to ask people to volunteer for such work is a waste of time. What is the Minister doing about encouraging local authorities not to treat the matter as a joke?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords,it is most difficult for me to answer when the noble Lord says that some local authorities regard civil defence as a joke whereas the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that the Government ought to allow local authorities to do what they want in this connection.
We have introduced a planned programme of implementation. We have invited local authorities—even those who regard it as a joke—to tell the Government what they are doing for civil defence purposes. The plan is being phased in over three years. However, I think I meet the points made by both noble Lords opposite when I say that the Government have a plan and it is therefore for the local authorities to implement it. It is the Government's duty to ensure that they do so.
Lord Renton: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will my noble friend confirm that local authorities have statutory responsibility, laid down by Parliament, to carry out certain functions in relation to civil defence, and that therefore when spending money on that, either with or without the Government's help, they should also he directly preparing for peacetime emergencies?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to accept and train civil defence volunteers. It is equally

375
true that they can use those resources for peacetime purposes where they think it proper and fit to do so. Planning for civil emergencies is carried out at present by local authorities without there being a specific statutory duty. I am not sure that we need primary legislation to make local authorities do what they wish to do. The implication of that point will be considered in the consultation exercise which is being carried out at the moment.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister must surely know that there are many local authorities which do not take any notice of what the Government say about civil defence. Indeed, they have put up placards saying that they are nuclear-free zones, whatever that may mean.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, means and to what he refers. However, the great majority of authorities are responding well to their statutory obligations. They include those which from time to time style themselves as nuclear-free zones. I am not aware that any of those authorities are refusing to carry out their statutory obligations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister give the response of the local authorities to the Government's request for information? Can he say which local authorities are implementing schemes to deal with emergencies, such as the great storm of last October? Will he say what the experience of his department was following that storm? Were he and his right honourable friend satisfied that the local authorities had responded adequately? Will he give the House a little more information?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, clearly, when any disaster occurs it takes some time to gear the necessary forces together. Dealing with such disasters is very much a matter for the emergency services. We were satisfied with how the emergency services carried out their work during last autumn's disaster, to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition referred. We have had a number of discussions. I told the British Red Cross on 2nd March that we were looking closely at many proposals for improving the United Kingdom's response to peacetime emergencies. A discussion paper will shortly be circulated to seek the expert views of the operational emergency services both on their present abilities and on scope for improvements. That consultation document will be circulated and we shall see what the professionals and others have to say.

Pension Rights on Divorce
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to legislate following their consultation paper on occupational pension rights on divorce.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the responses received by the Government to the consultation paper on occupational pension rights on divorce raised a number of problems concerning the proposed scheme. The Government are considering the matter further in the light of these responses and of the changes effected by the Social Security Act 1986.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply and for his helpfulness on this subject. Is he aware of the real concern felt by a large number of women who spend a large part of their lives abroad with their husbands and who are therefore unable to work and accrue entitlement to a pension at the end of their days? If he cannot bring forward major legislation, will he consider an amendment to the present legislation to put that point right?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is comparatively easy to make technical changes which might increase the flexibility of the orders a court may make on divorce. I am considering that point carefully. The essential difficulty is that in relation to pensions the event to be dealt with must be funded. The provision that has been made in most pension schemes—this applies to the point about which my noble friend Lady Young is principally concerned—relates to marriage and widowhood and does not apply additionally in respect of divorce. The problem is that further funds are required if an additional arrangement is to be made with regard to divorce. The courts, on an order in respect of divorce, cannot deal with that problem.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would not giving legislative effect to the proposals in the consultation paper be beneficial to a wife by ensuring that she does not suffer hardship by losing, where it would be inequitable for her to do so, the chance to benefit under an occupational pension scheme when her marriage is dissolved? Is there not a great deal of concern about this matter? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can give an indication as to when the Government propose to make some positive proposals.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord draws attention to a difficulty of which I am well aware. The representations that were made to me by my noble friend Lady Young and the representatives that she arranged should see me would have alerted me to that difficulty if I had not already known about it. I shall give a typical case of where a husband is working and the wife, not having worked, is divorced. Of course, the matter operates the other way round as well. Where the husband and wife are divorced, there will be a provision in the pension scheme for the husband to enjoy a pension. Some part of that pension can be diverted from him to the wife, and the court has power to arrange that. If he is not married at his death, the provisions which normally exist in a pension scheme in favour of a widow do not operate so there is no money available to divert to anyone at that stage. That is the real difficulty. Pension schemes provided by third parties

377
cannot readily be forced to deal with that problem unless the members of the pension scheme are prepared to put in the money needed. The state pension scheme makes certain provisions to help a divorced wife in those circumstances. It may not be convenient to narrate those provisions now. They are technical. I can do so if it is required. The position of the divorced wife when she becomes pensionable is dealt with in the state scheme. We are talking now about schemes over and above the basic state scheme. The difficulty is that when the husband dies without leaving a widow, that event is not provided for in such schemes, and therefore is not funded. There is no money available to be paid out in that event. That is the fundamental problem. At the moment I do not see a solution open to me to deal with that aspect of the problem within the context of divorce law reform or anything of that kind.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord saying that it is not possible through legal means to interfere with an occupational pension scheme in the way that the Government have laid down in the state pension scheme, where it is obviously easy for them to do so? Is it not the case that when opting-out of SERPS was introduced, it was made a requirement of opting-out that there had to be adequate provision for widows? If the state can intervene in occupational pension schemes to make adequate provisions for widows, would it not be possible also for the state to intervene to make adequate provisions for the divorced wives?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly it would. Perhaps I may elaborate a little. The point is that when the state scheme says that a person can opt out of it provided he makes a guaranteed minimum provision which includes widows, then the people who are operating that private scheme have to pay for it. There has to be a provision which gives rise to contributions of money for that purpose. If in addition there were to be a provision that divorced wives had also to be provided for, that is a further provision which would require the contributors, both the employee and the employer, to provide additional money. It is not usual, although it may not be impossible, for people to provide for their divorced wives in the same way as they do for their widows. It is that requirement which underlies the difficulty highlighted here. Nothing that I can do by way of changing the law with regard to rights on divorce can meet the problem.
The problem is that that particular event has to be taken into account in the funding. If people generally want to do that in a private scheme, it is always open to them. Of course, they can. But any additional benefits require to be paid for. If there is additional benefit to a divorced wife as well as to a widow, that must be paid for by additional contributions in some shape or form. That is the essential problem.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that in other countries special cases are made for divorced wives of diplomatic officers whereby a proportion of the occupational pension will go to each wife? Will the noble and learned Lord say whether we can perhaps
378
learn from the experience of other countries in this regard?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, a proportion of the husband's pension could certainly go in part to the divorced wife. There is no problem about that. So long as that money is there it is for the court to say how it is divided. There may be some slight technical problem about the precise form in which that result could be achieved. That is an aspect of what this paper was about. But that result can be achieved, perhaps not in the most elegant form, by the powers which the court now has; that is to say, diverting from the divorced husband part of his pension. There is no problem about that.
What is a problem is that once he dies and has no widow, then there is no further pension for anyone provided under the scheme. There is nothing the court can do to introduce one when it is not there. That is the essential problem. If someone wants to introduce it they have to pay for it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I quite see what my noble and learned friend is saying. The problem cannot be cured without legislation. However, would it not be possible under the matrimonial proceedings Act so to amend the law as to give the court power to direct the husband to pay an additional premium in order to protect the wife in the situation where he envisages that she will be deprived of her source of income in the event of the former husband's death?
I should have thought that it would have been possible to give the courts such a power, during the lifetime of both parties, to direct the husband to pay an additional premium.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend is aware, the consultation paper was dealing with the situation after the death of the husband. Of course, it is possible for arrangements to be made in which existing money, part of the joint estate, is used for a particular purpose. It would be perfectly possible to achieve the result that some part of the husband's money should be used to provide an annuity for his divorced wife after his death. That of course would be at the expense of his estate. It can be done.
All I am saying is that in order to make such a provision, money has to be found from somewhere. One cannot do it by operating on existing pension schemes in respect of benefits which are not there.

Business
3.34 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill will be taken.

Consumer Arbitration Agreements Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.35 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 185A:
After Clause 132, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to consult ratepayers.
.—(1) A relevant authority shall consult under this section persons or bodies appearing to it to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates under sections 39 and 41 above as regards hereditaments situated in the authority's area.
(2) Consultations must be made as to each chargeable financial year, and must be about the authority's proposals for expenditure (including capital expenditure) in that financial year; and the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe matters which are to be treated as expenditure for this purpose.
(3) Each of the following is a relevant authority—

(a) a charging authority;

(b) a precepting authority which falls within section 142(2)(a) to (f) below.

(4) The duty to consult as to a financial year shall be performed—

(a) where the authority is a charging authority, before it makes calculations (otherwise than by way of substitute) in relation to the financial year under section 99 above:

(b) where the authority is a precepting authority, before it issues the first precept to be issued by it for the financial year.

(5) In performing the duty to consult, an authority shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning—

(a) persons or bodies to be regarded for the purposes of this section as representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates under section 39 and 41 above as regards hereditaments situated in the authority's area, and

(b) the timing and manner of consultations under this section.

(6) An authority shall make available to persons or bodies it proposes to consult under this section such information as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State and is in its possession or control; and it shall do so in such form and manner, and at such time, as the regulations may prescribe.").
The noble Lord said: The Rates Act of 1984 introduced a duty on local authorities to consult representatives of business in their areas about their spending plans and the proposed level of rates. This duty was designed mainly to provide local authorities with an opportunity to influence the setting of the level of rate poundage, but also to provide a forum for the discussion of the level of services to business and other matters of joint interest to business and local government. The Government initially took the view that with the introduction of the national non-domestic rate which will remove the question of the level of the rate from the local arena, the duty to consult will no longer be required. This view was set
380
out in the yellow paper, Amendments to the Rating Legislation in England and Wales which was published in July 1987. We have however been persuaded by the argument that various business organisations have put to us that retaining a formal consultative procedure would be both of value generally in ensuring that local authorities listen to business concerns and specifically in ensuring discussion of issues such as the level of services that authorities provide to business in an area.
Our conversion to this view was announced together with our other conclusions on the yellow paper in the letter of my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government of 29th March to the Member for Copeland, a copy of which was placed in the Library of this House. That letter also undertook to bring forward a government amendment to amend the Bill accordingly.
Government Amendment No. 185A fulfils that commitment. It places a duty on charging authorities and precepting authorities to consult with bodies representing non-domestic ratepayers about their plans for expenditure in a financial year. In the case of a charging authority, the requirement will be for the consultation to be performed before the authority makes calculations in respect of the financial year in question. For a precepting authority, consultation must be carried out before it issues its first precept for the year in question.
The consultation will be principally on the level of services provided to business. But it will also cover the local authority's planned capital expenditure which the Government recognise is in many cases even more important to local business than revenue expenditure. This is a point which the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have made very strongly to us.
The amendment would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the matters which are to be treated as expenditure for the purpose of consultation. It would also require local authorities to have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the bodies to be regarded as representative of business and the timing and manner of consultations.
I accept entirely the point that all good local authorities already maintain close links with local business. This amendment will not make a great deal of difference to those authorities. But, as I am sure we are all aware, there are some local authorities who take a very different attitude to business. The point of the statutory duty to consult which this amendment retains is to ensure that all local authorities follow the practices which the good ones follow anyway.
We believe that the amendment will lead to a broader and more constructive relationship between local government and local business. By moving the focus of discussions away from the level of the rate which, in too many cases in the past, became a source of confrontation and on to the quantity and quality of services provided, discussions will turn to questions which are of mutual benefit to the authority, its residents and local businesses which provide employment and other opportunities. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are not opposed to this amendment and the local authority associations are not opposed to it. So far as I know, no local authorities are opposed to the amendment. I regret however that it was necessary for the noble Lord, in introducing the amendment, to make the customary boring attacks on a minority of local authorities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Social security]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 185AB:
Page 74, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection 2 below,").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, together with Amendment No. 186ZA, seeks to take out of the Bill the proposal to make people on income support pay at least 20 per cent. of the community charge from the extra money which is to be given to them by the DHSS for that purpose. I have replaced my original amendment with one which has the same purpose but where the drafting, I am advised, is more effective. However, I am sure the Committee will recognise that we are dealing here with a major point of dispute in the way the poll tax is to be raised from some 4 ·5 million people on income support. If the Minister is now prepared to see the force of our argument and to remove this widely criticised feature from the Bill, I am happy to leave the final drafting to the Government, because I know that we in Opposition are always accused of technically incorrect drafting.
The poll tax, as we all know, is the flagship of the Government's programme. The flag which they are flying they call accountability. Many of us believe that unless the Bill is revised in this Chamber that flag will very soon be seen to be in tatters. This is a clear case in point. The basic argument of the Government is that if everyone pays the same amount for the services of his or her local council, he or she will vote for low-spending policies rather than high-spending policies. Low spending on public services, especially those which come under local authority control, is regarded by this Government as by definition a good thing. In taking that logic a stage further, they insist that even people on income support receiving all their money from the public purse must pay at least 20 per cent. or one-fifth of their local poll tax.
The Government have been arguing throughout this Bill that by doing so people will somehow make their elected representatives more accountable to them than they were before. Indeed the assumption seems to be that these 4.5 million people who will be given the cash by central government to hand over to local government will start to demand low-spending policies, even though many of the services provided by the local authorities are more important to them as users than for the people with the larger incomes. It is also noticeable in passing that the Government do not pursue the logic of that argument in the other direction. They do not suggest that the better off people, whose local taxation will be substantially reduced by the poll tax, will begin to look favourably on high spending policies as they will be paying much less towards them.
When we look at the practicalities of the proposal for the 80 per cent. rebate instead of 100 per cent. rebate, the Government scheme is almost worthy of a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera. I spoke at Second Reading about the convoluted way of moving public money around and back into the public purse. First, the local council remits 80 per cent. of the community charge, then the Government refund the cost to the council. Finally, the DHSS pays an extra sum to the claimant to make up the remaining 20 per cent. This is essential because otherwise the claimant would have no money to pay the charge. But the 20 per cent. community charge contribution is a once-for-all jump in the scale rates for income support. It is not to be recalculated annually, so it will very soon lose any relationship to the actual community charge bills paid.
The Government propose a maximum rebate of 80 per cent., leaving even the very poorest people to find one-fifth of their poll tax bill. These voluntary organisations which are concerned with social security believe that this principle is quite indefensible. There are some 456 district councils, each of which will make their own separate poll tax decisions. But, instead of a true 20 per cent. subsidy matching the actual sum due in each district, there is to be a national average figure. Thus some claimants will receive more than they owe to the council and others less. Some will profit, others will lose.
This is not good enough. On 1987/1988 figures, 112 of those 456 districts would be above the national average. Those tend to be the districts that are concentrated in areas of high unemployment and inner city deprivation. Many of those people could be as much as £2 a week worse off under this system. Ministers may still believe that they are engaged in an exercise in accountability, but I see no equity in it. This amazing money-go-round is created for the sole purpose of pretending that it improves accountability when manifestly it does not.
The argument that paying social security benefits only to have them paid back under the present community charge proposals in some way increases local accountability is a complete red herring. Inevitably there will be some leakage of money while it travels on this roundabout—the journey from the DHSS to the claimant, through the poll tax and back to the local authorities.
The officers of the local authorities who will have to collect this tax have advised me through their professional body—the Rating and Valuation Association—that the collection of relatively small amounts from people on income support will be wholly uneconomic. They point to the high level of mobility among social security claimants, especially in the bigger cities. They will have to collect one-fifth of the charge in 10 equal instalments, so the actual sum to be billed and then chased up each month will be only 2 per cent. of the total poll tax per head for that district. To take the national average figure quoted at £236, that means that local government officers, armed with all the enforcement powers which have been provided in this Bill, will be trying to pick up £4 ·72p a time from people such as single parent families and others.
One does not have to be much of a businessman or an administrator to see the financial nonsense of that kind of regulation. The cost of billing, of collection and sometimes even of taking action to recover these small accounts may well he out of all proportion to the amount due. Where the cost of collection outweighs the potential income to be received, I believe that the sum will in many cases be written off.
We are not out to damage the Bill by this amendment and it is not a wrecking amendment. We are trying to save Ministers from themselves. We dislike the waste of public money that they are cheerfully contemplating. We object to the excessive bureaucracy that they seem happy to have created. We should much prefer a simple rebate scheme up to 100 per cent. of the community charge.
Will the Minister tell the Committee how the Government will make the calculations when the system is introduced in Scotland next year, in England and Wales in 1990. and in at the moment 10 London areas between 1990 and 1994, when both rates and community charges will be paid? We do not expect the claimants to vote any differently at future local elections whether they are fully rebated from the poll tax or whether they are given extra money to pay the 20 per cent. of it. But, however one looks at it, the claimants' poll tax is paid from public funds and we may as well recognise that fact and organise this scheme accordingly. In the real world there will be no loss of accountability, but there will be seen to be some common sense in our dealings. I beg to move.
Lord Hayter: If and when this amendment comes to be voted on and you are asked by Members of the Committee in whatever part of the Chamber you happen to be what it is all about, I beg you to say that it has nothing whatever to do with banding. Banding was dismissed by the Committee in the first major amendment proposed to this Bill. We are not talking about banding between one section of the community and another. We are talking about the very lowest band, the poorest in the land.
Again, if you are asked whether this is a wrecking amendment attacking the principle of the Bill, you will have to say, "No". The amendment which the noble Baroness has just proposed speaks of the charge for which an individual "is liable". Those words are contained in the amendment. We recognise that everybody is liable to pay the tax. It is simply a question of how that is best done.
The Committee has spent a great deal of time discussing the relative inequalities of the flat rate tax. "The duke paying as much as the dustman" was a phrase which was much used. This amendment does not claim to address such points of high principle as equality. Instead, it seeks to highlight the plight of the poorest sections of our society. It is concerned with the position of people who are so poor that under the Government's proposals they will receive an 80 per cent. rebate. We are discussing the very poor, as opposed to the near poor or the plain wealthy who, as we all know, are doing quite nicely.
The amendment is concerned with people who are living on income support or equivalent levels of
384
income. It is worth repeating what those levels are because they are sums that many of us can quite happily spend without a great deal of thought. For a single person under the age of 25 who is unemployed and perhaps homeless, the state provides £26.05 per week; at the other end of the life spectrum, retired couples get £33.85 per person. Those are sums which you and I think nothing of. However, they are the essence of life to such people.
We maintain that the Government's provisions to help the poor are inadequate. It is this which is the major spur behind this amendment to allow 100 per cent. rebates for the poorest. Stated simply, the Government promise that, while everyone will have to pay 20 per cent. of their local community charge, there will be an addition to national income support levels based on the national average 20 per cent. contribution. I emphasise the word "national". That approach seems to me to be riddled with imprecision and uncertainty, which for the poor is a recipe for further impoverishment.
It is a commonplace worth restating that contributions to income support levels are based on the national average community charge and will provide little comfort for people living in areas of above average community charge. It would be far better, in terms of precision, simplicity and compassion, to offer 100 per cent. rebates on the local charge. The Government accept that even under their scheme some people will pay nothing, receiving an addition to income support to cover their full 20 per cent. local contribution. Our amendment would harmonise the position right across the country.
Furthermore, we must tackle the Government once and for all on the vagueness of their proposals. Contrary to popular myth, income support is not a rationally calculated sum reflecting the minimum income necessary for people to live at subsistence levels. It is an arbitrary figure, built up over the years through a series of piecemeal changes and adjustments.
The Government now propose to add a notional element of compensation for community charge payments to an already arbitrary figure. It would be quite wrong to see this compensation as an identifiable component of state support. In fact, any addition to income support which the Government claim to make will be swallowed up in the general income support figures, which are hidden from the public eye by the refusal of the DHSS to publish a breakdown of the income support payment.
These measures cannot be seen in isolation for they form part of a network of regulations, sometimes petty in themselves, that make for the growing marginalisation of large sections of our community. Those are the forgotten people: the single parents, the homeless and the destitute. Today I came up in the train with a man from Scotland Yard. I was telling him about our debate. He laughed at the idea that local authorities would go into a place such as Brixton, where the police cannot control the drug problem or the rioting problem, and attempt to register such people and obtain money from them. He said, "I know exactly what they will say". He then said the two words which I would not dare use in this Chamber. However, I am sure that he was right.

385
The Government repeat as often as anyone asks that everyone must pay in order to give them a stake in the fight to keep down local government spending. However, it seems to me particularly unfortunate as a moral premise to believe that the pockets of the poor should be used as a tool of central government. It is almost obscene. The principle that everyone should pay 20 per cent. before claiming any compensation is an unnecessary risk with the wellbeing of many families. It is here that I locate the nub of the amendment; it substitutes certainty for doubt, precision for rough calculation and compassion for disdain. As such, its passing would show that, in the Committee at least, we are able to take a broad view and see that judicious review can improve both legislation and the lives of many people.
A considerable number of Members of the Committee have received complaints about various aspects of the Bill. I have every hope that the Minister will heed the words of the poet John Milton:
"That the bounds of civil liberty are enlarged by ensuring that complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed".
4 p.m.
Lord Grimond: I rise briefly to support the amendment. It seems quite incredible that the Government intend to charge the poorest people in the land—the people who probably need the services of local authorities most—in the way in which the Bill proposes. I shall not reiterate what has been said about the illogicality of the Bill and the unfairness of the average community charge. However, perhaps I may say that in Scotland we are beginning to suffer the first impact of these measures. We have received our assessments or notices. It is apparent, as we all suspected, that there will be appalling anomalies. The Government have not thought out the logic of the measures.
According to the speeches that have been made, the logic is that everybody should pay something for local government services. It is believed that if they do so they will then look more carefully at proposals for local government expenditure. Presumably that also applies to the people who sleep under the arches on the Embankment. Are the Government saying that those people will be deeply moved about local elections by the fact that they have to pay something towards services? The proposition is ludicrous.
Furthermore, when it comes to the pinch, a great deal of the information for which we are asked in Scotland clearly presupposes that the tax, like the old rates, will be largely a matter for householders. As was pointed out at Question Time, we have been asked for details about when we acquired our houses, how many people are living in them, when they moved in and so forth. On the arguments put forward by the Government, that has nothing to do with the Bill. It should not matter whether or not one owns a house. The purpose which the Government now have in mind is that everyone who uses local services should pay for them. Ministers who come to their offices in Whitehall should pay their contribution towards Westminster services, wherever they live.
It is clear that that logic is being abandoned. In place of it, we are going to have confusion, out of
386
which, as is so often the case, the poorest will come off worst. They will be required to pay their whack, even though they may get it back to some extent. In the process, as has been said, there will be great expenditure and great ill-feeling and there will be an increase in bureaucracy.
As has also been said, to accept the amendment is not to wreck the Bill; it is simply to take on board common sense. It tells one that it is ludicrous to try to charge the very poor in the country for services which it is accepted they cannot pay for. To do so is not only expensive and ludicrous; it wrecks the whole consensus on which the country has been built up and the respect for government or local government.
It would not in the least wreck the principles of the Bill—which are being abandoned in any case to a large extent—to exempt the people it is proposed should be exempted by this amendment. I very much hope that Ministers, if they will not yield to common sense, will at least yield in another place to the very serious natural consequences which this type of enactment will have for the Conservative Party.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, in what, if I may say so, was an excellent speech, said he thought that the view he had taken and which the proposers of the amendment and the others who have so far spoken have taken was the broad view. That implies that the view that is taken by those who agree with the notion that everybody, with very few exceptions, should contribute to local government services is a narrower view.
It seems to me (and I believe it deeply) that the situation in local government is such that we need a radical change in the way it is operated. We talked about that at Second Reading and earlier in Committee. Perhaps the nub of the radical nature of the proposed change is the idea that the least well off should contribute something.
Thinking about how people approach life nowadays, how the poorest people are aware of the mainstream of society more than they have ever been and want to join in, thinking indeed of the problems of the people who sleep on the Embankment, I believe that the government proposal represents one of the ways in which we can treat our fellow men with proper modern respect appropriate to the 1980s. The Bill tries to make it possible for them to contribute on equal terms with everybody else to the services which they use.
It is true that that contribution will be in very small sums based on the average community charge as we understand it at the moment. It will be something of the order of 50p a week which is due, plus or minus a few pence according to the level at which the local authority sets the community charge. That is the figure which it is assumed the 20 per cent. of the charge payable will amount to. The total may, I suppose, be up to £1.
If one is one of those people receiving income support one will know that that average community charge is an element of one's cost of living which is provided for in income support. It will be like receiving money for buying the basic food—the bread, eggs, butter and so on. One of the items for

387
which one will receive money is the community charge. The problem one will have to face is how to ensure that one has that money in one's hand when the community charge has to be paid.
The policeman whom the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, met laughed at the notion. I can understand that. He knows exactly how people carry on and what the problems will be. But the way that we deal with these things at the moment is not working too well and the police know that best of all. It seems to me that the Bill represents a serious attempt—which incidentally should help the police—to treat people with modern respect and help them to feel themselves required to contribute like everyone else.
The issue concerns one's attitude to one's fellow man nowadays and what one perceives to be the right way to try to move along into modern times. I am absolutely convinced that it is right. I do not believe that this is a wrecking amendment but I think that a basic element of the concept of the community charge is that everyone should contribute, except those very few who we all agree should be exempted for reasons other than income.
I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment. I know that it is moved with the most compassionate of intentions and that those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it believe that that is the right approach. I believe that the approach set out in the Bill is a new approach, a more modern approach; and it is an approach which I think will work. I very much hope that the Committee will leave the Bill as it stands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has turned to the only answer that the Government could possibly give to the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords who have already spoken. It has been made clear—as if it needed to be made clear —that the complexity and the administrative extravagance of the system which is proposed cannot be defended in its own right. The noble Baroness did not attempt to defend it on those grounds. The differences between one local authority and another have been made clear. One may hate local authorities but it does not mean that one has to hate the poor who live in the areas with local authorities which have high spending.
I noticed that the noble Baroness did not attempt to answer that point. She concentrated on what is becoming almost a point of theology in the Government's thinking. I am interested that she agrees with it. It is the kind of theology which is concerned with the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin rather than serious philosophical thinking.
I do not think that the noble Baroness lives in the real world or that she meets many poor people. If she did she would know that when you are so poor that you have to rely on income support you pay money all the time from the very small amount that you have. You pay for your food, lodging and all the other essentials. You pay taxes because you pay value added tax on the things that you buy. It does not give anyone a feeling of great pleasure or social responsibility to do so, but they do pay taxes.
388
The reality of being very poor is that you save and scrimp for things that you know are essential but for which you do not have enough money. You save for shoes, for clothes, for something to give the children a decent life. What is proposed here is that on top of that you should pay something to a local authority on the basis of a theological argument that it makes you more accountable for local authority services. I do not believe that many noble Lords, when they think about it, will believe that that is a realistic or humane way to behave to our fellow citizens who have less money than we have.
I appreciate the sincerity of the position of the noble Baroness and I know that she feels it deeply. But I believe profoundly that she is wrong and that the Government are wrong in putting forward that argument.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, I must ask him not to assume that I do not know any poor people or that I have not discussed this subject with extremely poor people. The Bill concerns England. I do not know Haringey and I do not know London, but there are a lot of poor people in Scotland. Not all of them agree at all with the noble Lord. I ask him to respect the integrity of what noble Lords say and not assume that if they disagree with him they do not know what they are talking about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I paid specific tribute to the noble Baroness's integrity. I think that she is wrong.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, this amendment seeks to allow for 100 per cent. rebates of the community charge. Therefore, in effect, it is an amendment which asks for a blanket exemption from the community charge to be made for people who have low incomes. I believe that this point was considered earlier in our proceedings when the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved Amendment No. 34 and subsequently withdrew it.
One of the Government's fundamental aims is to increase local accountability. That is the point which has just been the subject of a discussion across the Chamber between my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The Government have already begun that process in our reform of the housing benefit system. Since last April people in receipt of benefit have been expected to make a 20 per cent. contribution toward their rates. That minimum contribution will continue with the introduction of the community charge.
Perhaps I may briefly say a few words on what the Government propose in relation to that. It is fairly obvious from the discussions that we have had that the Government's proposals fall into two parts. There is the notion of an 80 per cent. maximum rebate and a provision by which people on low incomes will be further helped to pay the remaining 20 per cent. As I have said, the 80 per cent. maximum rebate is a concept that already applies to rates. It was approved by this Chamber when it agreed to the housing benefit general regulations of 1987. There are

389
three crucial points. The first is that the rebate will be 80 per cent. of the actual community charge in the area. Thus, for example, in an area with a charge of £200 a year, the maximum rebate will be £160, leaving the individual to pay £40. If the community charge is £250, the maximum rebate will be £200, leaving the person concerned to pay £50. Secondly, each individual will be assessed for a rebate in his own right. This raises an issue which I know has very much worried people in the past. I should like to make it absolutely clear that, for example, an elderly parent who relies on the state pension and is living with relatives, or an unemployed son or daughter who is living with parents, will be entitled to the maximum rebate, irrespective of the income of the other people in the household. Thirdly, we intend that those who are entitled to rebates should receive help in the form of a reduction in their bills. There will normally be no question of paying, say, £200 and getting back £160. The bill will be for the net amount, which in this example is £40.
That brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, who spoke about the very poorest in the land. I emphasise that yes, indeed, those people who are wholly dependent on income support (that is the former supplementary benefit) and those single people who earn up to £5 a week, or couples who earn up to £10 a week, above the income support levels will be eligible straightaway for the 80 per cent. rebate. Single pensioners and pensioner couples who are reliant on the state retirement pension and single people over 25 who are reliant on unemployment benefit will be absolutely without question entitled to the 80 per cent. maximum rebate. However, in addition, there will be the arrangements for helping those on low incomes to pay the remaining 20 per cent.
We believe that the 20 per cent. minimum payment will help to promote local accountability —I join my noble friend Lady Carnegy in stressing that point—and will ensure that everyone has a direct interest in the spending policies of their local authorities. I have to say to the Committee that in view of the low numbers of people who turn out to vote in local elections these days, I wonder whether it can be said that the electorate at this moment has the direct interest that it ought to have in how its local authorities are representing it.
Lord Tordoff: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he suggesting that this legislation will actually increase the turnout in local elections?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I am suggesting that it will increase the direct interest of people who will be paying the community charge. I do not know whether they will then go and cast a vote as a result, but I am suggesting that at the present time that direct interest is not to be found, as perhaps it ought to be, and that there is not that spur which I think desirable.
However, I am not saying that local electors receiving maximum rebates will have to pay the last 20 per cent. out of their own pockets. Their income support will be uprated to reflect 20 per cent. of the average community charge across the country and
390
that uprating will be carried out next year when the community charge is introduced in Scotland. It is not the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, suggested, that in some way there will be that uprating and then everybody will forget about it.
As I have said the income support levels will be adjusted from April next year when the community charge is introduced in Scotland, and that adjustment will reflect the average minimum contribution across Great Britain as a whole; but thereafter it will be absorbed in the general level of income support which is uprated every year. That means that although the amount will not be separately identified, in effect it will be increased year by year. So if the person who is receiving the maximum rebate together with the help given towards the 20 per cent. lives in an area in which local authority spending and therefore the community charge are low, the 20 per cent. uprating will be more than he needs and in fact there will be some money in his pocket. Conversely, if the 20 per cent. uprating is in a high spending area there will be a little to pay. If that person lives in an average spending area, the 20 per cent. uprating will fully meet his bill.
I said just now that there would be a little to pay. Perhaps I may now reply to one other point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, when she argued that some individuals in very high spending areas would find that the uprating of their income support fell some way short of their community charges. She mentioned a figure of £2 a week. I should like to point out to the noble Baroness that those figures would apply only in the case of those London boroughs which at the moment have the very highest spending to be found. However, it must not be assumed—and we on this side of the Committee certainly do not assume it— that when the community charge is introduced it will be at the figures produced on the basis of present spending; also, because of the provisions in Part IV of the Bill, the community charge in those high spending areas will be phased in and rates will be phased out over a period of four years.
Baroness Stedman: The noble Lord said that I was probably only talking about those people who live in areas where there are very high spending councils and who may have to pay an extra £2 a week over and above what they receive from the Government towards their community charge. Those are the people in the deprived inner city areas. There are a great many of those people and we are just as concerned about them and the effect that these regulations will have on them as we are about the few people at the other end of the scale who may well get back a little more from the DHSS than they need for their social services.
Lord Belstead: The noble Baroness is habitually very fair in her remarks; so let me put it straight to her. She is not right in saying that we are speaking of the very poorest people who live in the inner city areas. The example which the noble Baroness gave me related only to people who live in the very highest spending (inner London) boroughs to be found in this country. If I may say so to the noble Baroness, for the reasons I have just given it is not an accurate

391
reflection of what will happen to assume that those very high spending policies will continue—because there will be local accountability.
Perhaps the noble Baroness has forgotten the speech that was made by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford when we started our discussions of this Bill many weeks ago. It was a remarkable speech in which my noble friend, with his great experience of both local and central government, pointed out that whatever one may think of this Bill the one thing that it will do is bring home to local authorities that the people of their areas really do care about how those authorities spend their money. So fair is fair! The noble Baroness put a point to me. It was not a point of general application but of specific application. I do not believe that it will work out in the way that the noble Baroness put to me for the reasons that I have given.
Perhaps I may put one other point to Members of the Committee opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said that the Government had no heart for those who sleep rough under the arches or in the countryside. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, this was precisely the point brought up in proceedings some weeks ago. My noble friend Lord Caithness agreed to consider whether this was a valid point and promised that he would come back to the Committee with an answer on it.
Lord Grimond: In saying that the Government had no heart, I may perhaps have exaggerated. However, it is surely odd that the noble Earl at this stage should have to consider the matter. Is he not aware of the number of homeless people in London? When they drafted the Bill, did the Government not consider that there are many people who sleep out? They matter a great deal. Is it a shock to the Government to find this factor late in the proceedings?
Lord Belstead: My noble friend Lord Caithness agreed to take the point away and to come back on it. My noble friend who has been in charge of the Bill was very ready to do that. Let me finally ask Members of the Committee opposite to take on board this point. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour was realistic and I think had a point when she said that our proposals will mean that, whatever area people live in, those who are on low incomes will have a direct interest in their local authority spending policies, as will everyone else.
That would not be the position under the amendment which has been put to the Committee today. Indeed, the weakness of the case—put so strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—is that it would encourage no interest in local authority spending by those who are on maximum rebates. That attitude would be held to be dismissive of the very proper concerns for what goes on in a locality by people, whether they are poor or rich. That is not an attitude that Parliament should encourage. For that reason, more than any other, I ask Members of the Committee not to agree with this amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Since the provisions of this Bill will be applicable a year earlier in Scotland, it is therefore an immediate prospect. The highest spending areas, such as the city of Glasgow, are high spending not because they are irresponsible but because the need is greater. The people who live in Glasgow will be compensated to the extent of a national average which takes into account areas of less need. In these circumstances will the people in greatest poverty in Glasgow suffer even more as a result of the application of the principle which the noble Lord has just enunciated?
Lord Belstead: I quite understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I entirely accept what the noble Lord says: that the needs of Glasgow are greater than the needs of other areas. The Government say that this will be the criterion under which the 50 per cent. of the contribution towards the spending on local services will be based—in other words, in deciding what the government rate support grant of the future will be. Therefore when the noble Lord says to me that there will be problems—for instance, in Glasgow because of need, my answer is that the noble Lord may well be right, and this will be taken into account specifically by the government subvention system in the future. It has been said again and again on this Bill.
Baroness Stedman: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply although I cannot agree with very much of it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred to giving them back their self-respect and that they may have to pay plus or minus a few pence out of their own pocket if the 20 per cent. rebate they receive is not enough. A few pence is a very great amount to people who are almost on the poverty line or who are destitute. It matters to them that they have to find this money.
I am concerned also about the leakage that there will be from this money. It is paid by the DHSS in very small amounts, I know. But if a Member of the Committee opposite were a single parent with three children who never had any luxuries, never had anything, and who suddenly had £3 or £4 extra in his pocket, would such a parent not be tempted perhaps to buy the child a few sweets, or to buy a new pair of shoes, or, if it were an elderly couple, to buy a warm jersey? Those are the kinds of items on which the leakage will be used.
Are noble Lords saying that it is worth the while of local authorities and their officers to bill the amounts that are needed, to send someone round to chase these sums up, to go through all the processes which this Bill provides, to issue distress warrants, and eventually to try to get them into prison for paltry amounts such as this? In another place if a Member of Parliament puts down a Question and it costs too much to find the answer, he does not have the answer on the grounds that it is a waste of government money and would cost too much to provide it. These people are surely worth as much respect as a parliamentary question. If it costs so much to chase them up, is it really worth the bother of trying to get the money from them?

393
In my days as a county councillor I met very many poor people. I tried to help a lot of people who were on social security in those days. I do not wish to become too reminiscent, but I was brought up in a working class family during the miners' strike and during the hungry 'thirties. I know the problems that existed then, and I know the problems that many of the people about whom we are talking face now. The electorate will not take a greater interest in what the Conservative Party or Conservative councils are doing. My guess is that when this measure comes into being the blame for these people and many others having to pay anything will not lie at the door of their local councils. It will be the Government who take the can back for what is happening to these people.
I am sure that the Committee has some compassion. We have not seen a great deal of it from the other side this afternoon. However, I ask Members of the Committee opposite to consider whether it is worth all the effort to get these small sums back from people who are in such desperate need. One noble Lord has told me that while this debate has been going on he began to think we were back in the days of the Victorian value of pauperism. He reminded me that his grandfather once remonstrated with him because he gave a beggar sixpence. He was told that he was not respecting the man to give him charity like that. We are not asking for charity. We are asking for compassion. We are asking for fairness. I must ask the House to take a decision on this.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 185AB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Airedale, L.

Galpern, L.

Amherst, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Barnett, L.

Greenway, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gregson, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Blease, L.

Grimond, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hampton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hayter, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hooson, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carter, L.

Hunt, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jay, L.

Cromartie, E.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ennals, L.

Listowel, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ezra, L.

Longford, E.

Falkender, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Falkland, V.

McCarthy, L.

394

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sainsbury, L.

McNair, L.

Scanlon, L.

Marsh, L.

Seear, B.

Mayhew, L.

Seebohm, L.

Milford, L.

Serota, B.

Milverton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stallard, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nathan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Porritt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rathcreeden, L.

Willis, L.

Richardson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rochester, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Rugby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fortescue, E.

Aldington, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goold, L.

Alport, L.

Gormanston, V.

Arran, E.

Grantchester, L.

Auckland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Barber, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harvington, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hemphill, L.

Beloff, L.

Hertford, M.

Belstead, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hives, L.

Birdwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Blatch, B.

Hood, V.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Borthwick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ilchester, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Joseph, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Butterworth, L.

Killearn, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Kimball, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kitchener, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Layton, L.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

Luke, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Margadale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Marley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

De Freyne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dundee, E.

Nelson, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Effingham, E.

Newall, L.

Elibank, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elton, L.

Oxfuird, L.

Erne, E.

Pender, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Foley, L.

Reay, L.

395

Reigate, L.

Strange, B.

Renton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Rodney, L.

Strathspey, L.

St. Davids, V.

Terrington, L.

St. Germans, E.

Teviot, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Trafford, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Selborne, E.

Wise, L.

Shannon, E.

Wolfson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 74, line 12, at end insert—
("For the purposes of calculating the rebate payable to any person he shall be deemed to be 25 years of age or over.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Banks. Unfortunately he is indisposed and cannot be here but he has asked me to move the amendment for him. I am pleased to do so because it deals with the problem of young people under 25 and in one of my strange manifestations I am a vice president of the British Youth Council.
Young people have been taking a considerable amount of stick from the Government in one way or another. When debating the winners and losers in the poll tax young people come down firmly on the side of the loser, particularly those under 25. Over the past few years they have been subjected to the board and lodgings regulations. Those regulations deny young people the right to play an active role in their community by forcing them to move from one place to another in order to claim benefit entitlement. The Wages Act 1986 removed the under-21s from the protection of the wages councils. More recently the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986 introduced a lower level of benefit for the under-25s for, as far as we understand, no logical or rational reason. It is the relationship with the Social Security Act 1986 which impels the amendment.
The proposed rebate is based on the housing benefit rules within the Social Security Act 1986 and therefore the 25-year age barrier within the Act will apply also to rebate entitlement. The result is that young people with a lower level of income than those over 25 will lose all help with poll tax payments. Based on the English average, the threshold level for the under-25s is £57.70 and for the over-25s it is £58.10. Young people living outside London will lose all help with poll tax payments once their income exceeds £50.70. On the other hand, their counterparts over 25 will be able to earn up to £58.10 before the rebate disappears.
One could find two people living in identical circumstances aged 24 and 26, with identical jobs, earning the same amount, perhaps sharing the same flat and with identical outgoings. Under the Government's proposal the older person will receive some poll tax rebate whereas the younger person may not.
When this subject was raised in another place the Secretary of State said that the main reason for the distinction between the under and over-25s was that most of the under-25s live at home and do not have household expenses. However, is not the whole point about a poll tax that it is a tax on the individual for his use of local services and has nothing to do with the type or location of property in which he is living. Indeed we have heard today about cardboard boxes.
The Government amended their own Bill in the Commons to include Clause 3(2) which states that in deciding where a person has his sole or main residence in the area, the fact that he does not live in a building is irrelevant. Therefore, when it comes to assessing liability for tax the Secretary of State does not care where one lives, but when it comes to assessing rebate entitlement, the Secretary of State then cares whether or not you are a householder so that he can give you less.
I believe that this age barrier of 25 has no logical basis whatever. Amendment No. 186, which we propose, only ends some of the unfairness in the way in which it applies to young people. However, it would be the very least that we could do to reduce the unfair discrimination for that particular age group.
I could go on about how young people are our future and so on, but I do not think that that sort of emotional approach is likely to commend itself to the Committee. However, I believe that there is a very simple point here: there is this odd cut-off point at the age of 25 where, because of the operation of the 1986 Act, people under 25 will be discriminated against. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: We support this amendment. We have never understood why the arbitrary age of 25 was picked on to make such a different social security provision. I have often asked this question and I can recall being afraid that I was boring the Chamber with it during the social security legislation which introduced this proposal. We never received a satisfactory reply.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, one answer is that people under 25 are supposed to be living with mother. The Prime Minister said only the other day that homeless young people sleeping rough should go back home to mother. Members of the Committee opposite do not seem to understand that not everybody under the age of 25 has a mother. Sometimes the mother is dead or sometimes there is a wicked stepmother. There are all sorts of reasons which make it essential for people up to the age of 25 to be able to lead their own lives. They want to be independent, and many are homeless because they are trying to find work. Some leave home because of frictions, especially where there are broken marriages.
I did not feel young when I was 24½. I felt very old at that time. Many of those young people are married. Many are perhaps trying to set up in business, of which I am sure the Government would approve. Some may be performing jobs in the daytime and paying for further education courses in the evening. I know several who are spending more than they can afford on fees for something like the Open University. The idea that anyone under 25 is a

397
different sort of human being living in a different world from when one is 25 plus one day is absolutely mad.
This Government seem to hate young people. There have been these stringent bed and breakfast and lodgings rules which push them around. They must not stay in one place for more than a certain time and, if they go elsewhere and they find a nice landlady, they must not stay with her for too long. The whole emphasis seems to be on making it very difficult for young people to have a start in life and to deal with their own problems in an independent way. Up to the age of 24 years and 364 days they should not have to go and ask their parents for money. If their parents do not give them money it seems that under this Bill they will be penalised.
We believe that it is absolutely essential that this age should be changed. As I say, these people might be married or supporting elderly parents and are fully adult in every sense of the word. That is why we are moving this amendment so that in this wretched Bill, they will at least be treated on a par with other people whatever their age.
I was interested in the last debate when the Minister referred to making people feel responsible for their local authorities and for rushing off to vote. I wonder when he last asked anyone sleeping rough under which local authority's hedge he was sleeping. I do not think that many of the people at Charing Cross know the name of the borough, let alone are on the electoral register. When there is a mobile population it is very difficult for people to relate in the way in which the Government seem to think that they should to that big town hall which is very often to them just a building opposite the railway station.
For those reasons we are waiting to know what is holy about being 25. I ask Members of the Committee to look back and think what they were doing at the age of 25. How many children did they have? Were they living with mother? What sort of lifestyle did they want? Did they want to be independent and adult? The age of majority is 18 and I should have thought that to choose that age would have made some sense. However, I support this amendment, as do my noble friends, because we believe that there is no reality in having this extraordinary break-off at the age of 25.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: This amendment introduces what will become a statutory legal fiction with regard to an age limit. All age limits are, to an extent, arbitrary. They are necessarily based upon the most usual cases likely to occur. We have them in the statute book, in definitions of children and young persons. There is the age of voting at 18. The age limit is still 21 for certain purposes. For the purpose under discussion it happens to be 25. Later in life we find that there is an age limit when we have our retirement pensions—60 and 65. All these are arbitrary age limits.
The noble Baroness asked: what is holy about 25? One may well ask: what is holy about any other age limit? However, I should like to suggest to the Committee that legal fictions should be avoided in legislation, however good the motive for them. I am
398
not suggesting that there is a good motive in this case because we have to have age limits for certain purposes. This age limit was fixed by Parliament after very mature consideration. However, I must say that I hope that my noble friend would not fall for the temptation of agreeing to this legal fiction. It would make a nonsense of the age limit in this case.
Lord Bellwin: I wonder what evidence there is to show that people under the age of 25, the people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred, are in any way worse off today than they were in previous years under administrations which she supported. Where is the evidence to show that that is so when she says, "This Government seem to hate young people"? I do not believe that she should be allowed to get away with that as a statement and it then be assumed that that is a fact. Many of us on this side of the Committee would vigorously deny that that is so.
Perhaps I may turn to her question: what were we doing when we were 25? I lived at home when I was 25 and I did not consider in any way that that made me feel that I was not dependent. I felt very dependent. The fact is that I loved living with my parents because of the regard that I had for them.
Baroness Jeger: You were lucky.
Lord Bellwin: It may be that I was lucky. I suggest that there are many others who are lucky, too. While it is true that there are those in the categories to which the noble Baroness referred, nevertheless there are many who choose to live away from home. There is nothing at all wrong in doing that. Indeed, that is to be encouraged if it is so wished. However, that does not detract from the fact that in so doing such persons actually add to the burden of the housing problem. This is not to say that one should not always try to better the situation. I am sure that Members on all sides of the Committee subscribe to that. Nevertheless, it is a fact that those who could stay at home, but choose not to do so, add to the problem. I do not believe that it helps the discussion at all to say that that is not so.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he saying that he is abandoning the advice of a friend of his who said that they should get on their bikes and look for work? That is the main reason for people leaving home. When the noble Lord said that people under 25 may have been worse off under a previous government, surely it was a Conservative government that brought in the 25 years-of-age rule.
Lord Bellwin: I do not say anything of the kind. There will always be people who wish to find work in other places if it is not available locally. Surely, that is not to suggest that that is the basis of the whole problem. It is clearly not so. It does not add to the debate to distort the facts as they are, and that is the point I am taking up with the noble Baroness.
Lord Underhill: I generally respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, but he will not deny the official figures of homelessness, particularly in London. The official figures show a staggering increase. These are not people who have just, willy-

399
nilly, left home; they are people who are homeless because of all kinds of circumstances. I was fortunate because I was married at the age of 23 and had my first child at the age of 24. I was living on a very low income. Many of these people have practically no income at all. Most of us know people who have come to London in order to find work, do not find it and then, for various reasons, are homeless. These are the reasons why some of the inner London authorities have such high expenditure.
Lord Belstead: In listening to my noble friend Lord Bellwin, my feeling was that he had very much in mind that this amendment runs directly contrary to the way in which income-related benefits work. My other noble friend who spoke in this short debate, Lord Renton, pointed out that age limits are something of a legal fiction—
Lord Renton: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am saying that this amendment introduces a legal fiction as regards an age limit. I do not consider that other age limits are legal fiction, but they are arbitrary.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to my noble friend for interpreting him in a way which would not have redounded to my own case. I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me in his last words that when one has age limits they tend to be arbitrary. In his earlier remarks I remember him saying that presumably the ages of 60 and 65 are arbitrary as regards retirement benefits. There are reasons, and some age has to be fixed. Is it unreasonable to have this particular age in the social security system? In passing the Social Security Act 1986, the intention of Parliament was that in calculating income-related benefits, account ought to be taken of a claimant's personal circumstances. This is because the financial needs of a single 18-year old are likely to be different from the needs of a married couple with children. In turn, they are likely to be different to the needs of a physically handicapped pensioner.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that, whatever the argument, it very much seemed that the whole question depended upon whether one lived in a house. It is not quite like that. The assessed financial needs of a particular claimant are known as his or her applicable amount and, in calculating applicable amounts, 25 is held in the regulations made under the 1986 Act to be a significant age for single people because most of the older age group are becoming householders and their living expenses are becoming greater. As payments of rebates or benefits for the community charge are to be income-related, the calculation of entitlement should be based upon the same general rules for income-related benefits, such as income support or housing benefit.
So it is that, in calculating rebates for the community charge for people under 25, the way in which their entitlement tapers off will mean that single people under 25 will cease to be eligible for rebate at a lower level of income than single people of 25 years of age or over. This reflects the assumption upon which the social security system is based.
400
The first point I am making is that this amendment is not really aimed so much at the rebate system for the community charge, but at the social security system—
Baroness Jeger: Hear, hear.
Lord Belstead:—which makes different assumptions about the needs of people according to their circumstances. There is a second and a very important point. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is saying "Hear, hear"; in other words, I believe she is suggesting that I am saying something which is hardhearted. Perhaps I may show a little compassion. Let us be absolutely clear: a person who is under 25, out of work, or wholly dependent upon income support, will receive exactly the same benefit as someone over 25. In other words, he will receive the 80 per cent. rebate.
I emphasise that couples and lone parents under the age of 25 will also have the same benefit entitlement as people who are over 25. Those under 25, or out of work, married, or having children, will receive the full rebate if their income entitles them to do so. It is the social security system which assumes that the needs of the single person under 25 are less than those of people who are older. It is that which this amendment seeks to change and it is that which I ask the Committee not to agree to.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who have joined in this short debate. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says and I have considerable sympathy for it. One would not necessarily wish to introduce a legal fiction if one can find a better way. If the noble Lord has a few spare moments between now and Report stage, I shall be grateful if he can indicate how it can be done in a way which does not create a legal fiction.
As regards the people concerned, it is not a fiction. Because of the effect of the 1986 Act, it is having a knock-on effect into this Bill which is grossly unfair. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, allowed himself to be seduced into somewhat peripheral issues. They may have been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who rightly feels extremely strongly about these matters. However, those points have nothing whatever to do with the burden of housing. The question of housing came in because of a reply in another place which suggested that the reason there should be a cut-off was because the majority of those over 25 are householders and have householders' expenses.
I sought to indicate that that is not the philosophy upon which this Bill is based. The owning or otherwise of property has nothing to do with this system of taxation. I do not see how I could have put the case more clearly, but the Government are seeing it as an attack on the whole of their social security system. It seems that the boot is totally on the other foot. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned in his response to the Minister, it is because of the arbitrary nature of the Social Security Act that we are faced with this situation. I believe that it is having a knock-on effect into this Bill which I do not think was intended by the original draftsman. I do not think,

401
particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that I should pursue this amendment today. But I do not believe that the problem will go away. It is wrong that people under 25 should be dealt with more harshly when, in many cases they may well be living in exactly the same circumstances, as people over 25. If the age were 18 or something like that, there might be more of a case. However, with all the philosophy behind the Bill, it seems to me that 25 is an arbitrary age which should certainly not be introduced into this Bill. Nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 186ZA not moved.]
Clause 133 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Social security]:
5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 186A:
Page 124, line 30, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 102D. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 187 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 187ZA:
Page 126, line 3, leave out ("a prescribed percentage") and insert ("ten per cent. or less").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we come to another element of the rebate system for the poor which is proposed by the Government. The first debate that we had this afternoon was on the subject of the threshold, and on that the Committee has made its decision, which I very much regret. But that is not the whole of the story. In addition to the provision that even the very poorest shall pay 20 per cent. of their personal community charge, subject to the provisions which we know about for changes in income support, there is a complex system of tapers to allow a reducing amount of rebate of the personal community charge as income increases over the minimum level. In Schedule 13 this percentage—the proportion by which the rebate decreases as income rises—is called the prescribed percentage.
I am somewhat surprised that the Government still think that they can get away with calling it the prescribed percentage and leaving it to regulation by the Secretary of State, because this was a matter of considerable political uproar in another place in April this year when the housing benefit regulations were debated and when the Government were forced by pressure from their own back-benchers to change the taper from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent.
Noble Lords will remember that this change took place a few days before the debate on housing benefits was due to take place, and it was intended to buy off the opposition of a number of Conservative backbenchers in another place. The effect of that politically was somewhat weakened by the fact that it became clear from leaked documents that the Government did not intend that there should be any
402
real further expense to the public purse from that. They intended these changes to be self-financing, and that did not do the Government's reputation any good either.
However, the Government still apparently think it proper to ignore the very strong political and public feeling about the percentage points of the taper by allowing it to be dealt with by secondary legislation in this Bill. We are proposing that the taper should not be the 20 per cent. originally planned, nor the 15 per cent. to which the Government agreed for housing benefits in April this year, but a figure of 10 per cent.
I think I should explain what that means in money terms to a couple facing the average community charge bill of £8 ·62 a week. Under the 20 per cent. taper as originally proposed, it would mean that they would get no rebate whatever if their net income, including any earnings disregard, exceeded £93 ·45 a week. Under the 15 per cent. taper which was accepted for the housing benefit regulations, they would get no rebate whatever if their earnings were above £104 ·12.
Under this amendment, which would put the figure straight on the face of the Bill and mean that the Government are prepared to stand up and be counted about it, it is still not a very high figure. We are still saying that there would be no rebate at all for net earnings above £125 ·45. When I remind the Committee that average net earnings based on average gross income of £213 are £166·66, noble Lords will realise that we are not exactly throwing money around to the lower paid. These people are still well below average earnings and are still receiving no rebate of any kind.
Let us accept that the Committee has agreed that the threshold for the very poorest shall not be changed. There is no logical reason why the Committee, even if it has taken that decision, should not recognise that those who are not our very poorest, but who are still substantially below average earnings, and therefore in very difficult financial circumstances, working in lowly paid jobs, perhaps only being able to work part-time or to work on a seasonal basis—there are many circumstances in which this happens—still deserve to some extent to have the wind tempered to them.
I put it to the Committee that it would be an act of conciliation, an act of recognition of the hard circumstances in which many of our fellow citizens live, if the Government were to agree to this amendment or to indicate that, even if they do not agree to it being put on the face of the Bill, this is the basis on which the taper will be calculated by the Secretary of State when he is determining the prescribed percentage. I do not want to make two issues— one of which is whether the percentage should be on the face of the Bill—confuse the basic humanitarian purpose behind this amendment, which is to increase the rebate system for those who are still very poor but not the very poorest.
I hope the Committee will feel that this is not in any way a threat to the principles behind the Bill. It is perhaps a very modest movement in favour of the Government's original intention of having a

403
replacement for the rates which took account of ability to pay. But it would not be a political defeat for the Government if the Committee agreed to this amendment. It would be, as I said, a humanitarian gesture and I hope that the Committee will feel able to agree to it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As this is the first amendment that we have discussed in relation to this schedule, except the earlier minor one, Amendment No. 186A, I wonder whether I may be forgiven for pointing out that this is the longest and most complex schedule in the Bill. It is necessary in order to amend the Social Security Act 1986, in order that the Government's policy of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb, which is part of the policy under this Bill, can be implemented.
Having said that, I must point out that it, first, makes massive amendments to existing legislation by a system of cross-reference. Admittedly it is done by the admirable method of textual amendment, but one cannot possibly follow these massive amendments with a copy of this Bill in front of one.
The schedule also gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations, some of which may amend not only this Bill but previous legislation. But for the good purpose of this schedule I should have said that from the point of view of legislative drafting it really goes over the top. However, it has a good purpose and one should acknowledge that.
Having got that off my chest—and I hope I may be forgiven for doing so I now come to the amendment. When we are legislating, especially if we are legislating in ways which affect people's pockets—and of course this amendment does affect people's pockets—it is desirable that we should, if feasible and possible, be certain about what we are doing. There is no doubt that, by leaving the matter to be "a prescribed percentage", we are leaving it to the Secretary of State's good intentions. To that extent there is uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with I think a justifiable motive, is trying to remove the uncertainty by suggesting that the percentage should be 10 per cent. Frankly I do not know whether or not it should be. But if it is not to be, I am sure that we shall get a good explanation from my noble friend, to which I look forward.
Lord Somers: I am not a great mathematician but at least I can see that "a prescribed percentage" is much too vague to have in a Bill of this sort. "A prescribed percentage" may mean anything from ·001 per cent. to 99·9 per cent. We should have something more definite in the Bill as a protective measure.
Incidentally, the Bill says, "a prescribed percentage". Who will do the prescribing? We are not told that. This ought to be amended. Whether or not the percentage suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is the right one, I am not prepared to say, but I feel that something should be put there instead of what is there already.
Lord Renton: If the noble Lord were to turn to the Social Security Act 1986 he would find that the
404
percentage was to be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The Government announced in April that the taper for community charge benefit would be 15 per cent., which means of course a reduction of 15p in benefit for every £1 of extra income above the relevant limit. Previous examples of rebates and estimates of the number of people who would benefit from rebates had assumed a taper of 20 per cent., which is the figure which now applies to rate rebates. In bringing forward that proposal the Government were making an improvement on the rate rebates that people get at the moment, if their income so allows.
The decision to set the taper at 15 per cent. rather than 20 per cent. will ensure that a great many people who would otherwise have been just outside the rebate system will now benefit from it. With a 20 per cent. taper we estimate that about 8 million people would have been eligible for a rebate of their community charge. The 15 per cent. taper will bring in a further 1 million people, as well as benefiting the 4 million people whose rebate entitlement is less than the maximum 80 per cent. by giving them larger rebates than they would otherwise have received. Put another way, the introduction of the 15 per cent. taper proposal will mean that we get about 9 million people who will be able to qualify for a rebate.
But is the proposal for a 15 per cent. taper enough—because of course this amendment does two things? It says that the taper ought to be 10 per cent., but it also says that it ought to be written on the face of the Bill. Therefore I have to answer the question whether the 15 per cent. is enough. We have to set our social security budget taking into account people's needs and what the country can afford, and one has to decide how widely the available money can be spread. A 15 per cent. taper will provide for rebates a significant way up the income scale. For instance, a couple with two children paying the average community charge at current levels would qualify for a rebate if they had earnings of up to three-quarters of the national average. I believe that this is a reasonable range within which the rebate system should operate.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Renton when he says that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in trying to put the rebate on the face of the Bill, is endeavouring to remove uncertainty. I quite understand why he wants to be sure. But before I come to that point finally may I say that the noble Lord gave, if he will forgive me saying so, a somewhat distorted account of the announcement of the 15p taper by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The announcement did not actually follow a row, as the noble Lord alleged, on the housing benefit regulations, but if followed, as my right honourable friend made clear, lengthy deliberations as to the level of the target that it would be right to use for the community charge. Well, Members of the Committee laugh, but as I have already explained, the introduction of a 15 per cent. taper is going to mean a lot of extra money to a lot of extra people.

405
I come to an important point which I must put on record. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to an assumption that the increased cost of this better rebate system as a result of having the lower taper target would be met by other community charge payers. I am sure the noble Lord is aware, because it is a point which has been made explicitly by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, that no decision has been taken as to how the cost is to be met. That will be decided in the usual way when the level of grant to local authorities is settled for 1990–91.
I come finally to the other point in the amendment, which is that whatever the level of the taper—and I am arguing that 15 per cent. is right—should it be put on the face of the Bill? This is a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and my noble friend Lord Renton have mentioned, and I quite recognise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a perfectly justifiable concern here.
The proposal in the Bill is that it would be specified in the regulations, which as my noble friend Lord Renton rightly said, will be laid before Parliament by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, because the reference in the schedule is back to the 1986 Act, and all that will be after consultation with the local authority associations. Not only is it proper for it to be in regulations but it would be inconsistent with normal procedures to enshrine the level of the taper in primary legislation.
The regulations on rebates would come before your Lordships' House in due course and your Lordships would be able to debate the appropriate level of the taper. If at a later stage any adjustment to the figure is proposed, both Houses do not then have to go through the whole business of having to have a new Bill, but the matter can be done in primary legislation. There is nothing sinister in saying that, because one can always talk about figures going down as well as going up. It is for that final reason that I believe that this amendment is not well conceived. At any rate I am sorry, because the noble Lord is a good debater and we enjoy debating with him, but I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the examiner's judgment on that response would be, since the noble Lord himself used the word "improvement", that it was a courteous speech but there is still room for improvement in the conclusions that he reached. The amendment in one part is a probing amendment and in one part a determined amendment. The probing part is the attempt to put the provision on to the face of the Bill.
In moving the amendment, I said that if the Minister was able to indicate that the Government looked favourably on the 10 per cent. taper—the 10p loss of rebate for every pound of income, as he rightly specified—we should certainly withdraw it. However, having the figure on the face of the Bill is not the most important issue to us; the most important issue is trying to improve the financial lot of many people who are much worse off than we are. That is why the noble Lord was right in referring again to the responsibility that the Government have for ensuring that there is a determined and proper figure for total
406
social security benefits. The amendment would undoubtedly increase the cost of this element of social security benefits. We do not deny that.
Since we are being political about it, this is in the context of a budget that forwent vast amounts of income that government had had in the past by reducing taxation for the better off. The Government clearly thought therefore that to reduce taxation for the better off was a higher priority than to improve the lot of those who find themselves on well below average earnings and in need of the support of the rebate system. To that extent the Minister and I are in political opposition. There is no way of getting round that point.
I can seek to persuade the Committee that the 10 per cent. figure is right only by repeating what I said before: even at a figure very much below average earnings, even at a figure which makes keeping body and soul together very difficult, there will be no rebate of the personal community charge. Without seeking to pursue the matter of the drafting of the Bill, on which I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I think it right that I should seek the opinion of the Committee on the issue of the 10 per cent.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 187ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 130.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Basnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Milford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rochester, L.

Grimond, L.

Seear, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayter, L.

Stallard, L.

Hooson, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Strabolgi, L.

407

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Willis, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Underhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aldington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Joseph, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kimball, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bellwin, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Leathers, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Luke, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brightman, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Margadale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norrie, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cowley, E.

Oxfuird, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Porritt, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Reay, L.

Dundee, E.

Reigate, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Rodney, L.

Elibank, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Germans, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Erne, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sandford, L.

Foley, L.

Selborne, E.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Goold, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathspey, L.

Haddington, E.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trafford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hemphill, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hereford, Bp.

Windlesham, L.

Hertford, M.

Wise, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Young, B.

Hood, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 187A:
Page 126, line 9, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 189A:
Page 129, line 41, after ("war") insert ("disablement pension or war").
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes a discrepancy between the provisions for community charge benefit and those for housing benefit in the Social Security Act 1986. Under that Act local authorities may disregard a war disablement pension or war widow's pension in calculating housing benefit. We want them to have exactly the same power in relation to community charge benefit, but as drafted the Bill would allow them to disregard only war widows' pensions. This amendment remedies the position. I hope the Committee will welcome the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As no other noble Lord on either side of the Committee is going to welcome the amendment, I should very much like to do so. It is right and proper that we should bear in mind those who have suffered in war and now receive war disablement pensions. I congratulate my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope it will be recognised that our silence on this matter does not indicate dissent but an anxiety to see the business of the Committee efficiently conducted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 132, line 11, leave out from ("benefits") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: In moving amendment No. 190 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 191 and 192. These are probing amendments. We want to know that the Government plan to reimburse to local authorities the costs of the administration of the poll tax and of the rebates which will take revenue away from local authorities. If the Government are willing to indicate that that is the case—and there is reason to believe from what the Government have said earlier that that is so—we will not pursue the amendments.
It is important that we should be clear whether the rates of subsidy under the current housing benefit system will be carried through into the poll tax rebates system. At the moment the Exchequer subsidy is paid at a rate of 97 per cent. of the actual gross costs on most expenditure and at a rate of 60 per cent. on administration costs. It is common ground among all the local authority associations, regardless of their political affiliation, that 100 per cent. of the administration costs—let us compromise on 97 per cent.—should also be reimbursed. I do not think it would be good enough for the Government to say in reply that this is dealt with in needs assessment. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will forgive me, there is a danger in using needs assessment to cover the costs of administration or the cost of rebates. Needs assessment is supposed to be

409
about needs and not about the cost of administration or the costs of rebates which are imposed on local authorities by central government.
For those reasons I hope that the Government will be able to give sufficient indications, first, as to the carry-through to this Bill of the method under the housing benefit system, and, secondly, as to the uprating of the compensation for administration from the present 60 per cent. level which applies under housing benefits. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Amendment No. 190 would remove the power of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in the annual subsidy order to make adjustments to community charge benefit subsidy to allow for circumstances which the normal rules do not fit. It also removes the power to make deductions from subsidy so as to exclude items which it would be unreasonable to meet out of money provided by Parliament for subsidy purposes. What it would not do is to require subsidy to cover 100 per cent. of benefit paid. The noble Lord made it clear that he was aware of the high percentage in benefit at the moment and wanted to know whether that would be carried through to the new arrangements. The provisions which the amendment seeks to remove are not those that will be used to determine the rate of subsidy. Their purpose is very specific, and they are essential to ensure that authorities in special circumstances do not receive either too much or too little subsidy, and to prevent abuse of the system.
The noble Lord has made it clear that he is driving at a rather different point, the one which I have just mentioned. Yes, as my information is the same as his, the percentage which he recorded is the right one. As to what the percentage for the benefit in the future will be, that must he for future decision. All I can say today is that we are talking about a very high percentage. I simply cannot go further than that in answer to the noble Lord.
Amendment No. 191 would require my right honourable friend to support the costs incurred by local authorities in administering the community charge benefit scheme by direct subsidy. We envisage that the arrangements for subsidising administrative costs will follow a similar approach to those for the housing benefit scheme. The provision in the Bill is therefore similar to that in Section 34 of the Social Security Act 1986, which covers subsidy in relation to housing benefit.
Amendment No. 192 would require subsidy to be paid in respect of the whole of a local authority's administrative costs. This would be an open-ended commitment to meet all costs incurred by local authorities and would conflict with the Government's aim of increasing authorities' accountability and cost control. We will need to consider carefully the arrangements for subsidising the community charge benefit scheme when we are looking at the detailed provisions of the scheme itself. There is no question, however, of the Government accepting a commitment to meet all costs in full. I am sorry to be unhelpful on each of the three amendments. I hope nonetheless that the exchange of information which the noble Lord and I are having on the three amendments will be of some assistance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I well understand that the gap between us on administration costs will not readily be bridged. I should like to pursue for a moment the question of the percentage of the gross costs of the revenue loss from the rebate system. It seems to us that the principles which apply for housing benefit are so close to the principles which should apply for the rebate system that "a very high percentage", as the noble Lord has said, is not quite precise enough. However, if he would indicate without giving an actual figure—that the principles upon which the Government will be calculating the benefit to the local authorities are comparable to those for the housing benefit scheme, it would go a very long way to removing our disquiet.
By the nature of their social mix, the local authorities which have the highest level of rebates, and therefore would suffer most if their rebate loss was not made up, are those with the greatest number of social problems causing them the greatest expenditure. I recognise that some of the problems will be dealt with by the needs grant. Nevertheless, it would not be unreasonable or out of keeping with the Government's existing practice under the housing benefit scheme if they agreed to apply the same principles to this as to housing benefits. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some assistance on the matter.
Lord Belstead: I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the principles will indeed be comparable to those which are now used for housing benefit. I hope that what I have said is helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, it is most helpful. It will be well received by those local authorities which are most concerned about the matter. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Tribunals]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 134, line 24, at end insert—
("Arbitration.
3A.—(1) This paragraph applies as regards any matter which falls within the jurisdiction conferred on tribunals by—

(a) section 22 above,

(b) regulations under section 47 above, or

(c) regulations under paragraph 3 above.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, where the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below agree in writing that the matter is to be referred to arbitration, the matter shall be so referred.
(3) The persons are the persons who, if the matter were to be the subject of an appeal to a tribunal, would be the parties to the appeal.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 192A, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak also to Amendments

411
Nos. 192F and 192G. This group of amendments covers a number of tidying-up measures to the provisions relating to valuation and community charge tribunals. It might be helpful therefore if I explain briefly the purpose of each of them.
Amendment No. 192A makes provision similar to that in Section 78 of the General Rate Act which is designed to permit a rating appeal to go direct to the Lands Tribunal rather than being heard by a local valuation court, provided all parties agree. Although this provision is rarely used, it is useful to have such a provision so that an appeal which raises major issues—and is likely to be taken to the Lands Tribunal in any event—may be taken there direct. The amendment similarly provides that an appeal against a decision relating to the community charge may be taken direct to the High Court, if all parties agree, where it raises a point of law.
Amendment No. 192F makes provision for further appeals against decisions of the valuation and community charge tribunal. As is now the case, there will be a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of the tribunal on a rating appeal. There will also be a right of appeal to the High Court on a community charge appeal, but only on a point of law. There is a reason for that distinction. Rating apeals involve questions of valuation and judgment and it is only right that there should be a second forum to which a person may appeal if he feels that the first decision is wrong. In the case of community charge appeals, these are essentially questions of fact.
Moreover, the tribunal is the second tier of the system: a person who is aggrieved will already have had the opportunity to take his case to the community charge registration officer or the local-authority. If they disagree, the person may appeal further—to the tribunal. That should give everyone the opportunity to have his case adequately considered. Where, of course, he considers that a point of law is involved, regulations made under Schedule 14 will provide for him to take his case to the High Court.
Amendment No. 192G contains a number of general provisions. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 14 provides for the local valuation courts to be wound up and reconstituted as valuation and community charge tribunals and for the VCCTs to assume jurisdiction in relation to any appeal made to a local valuation court before they were wound up. Paragraph 12A makes provision for regulations dealing with appeals that go to arbitration. Paragraph 12B provides that the procedures for dealing with rating appeals may differ from those relating to community charge appeals. Paragraph 12C deals with the case where a person has appealed against his register entry on the grounds that he has ceased to be liable. It is possible that the appeal may be heard some time after the person ceased to be liable. In such a case, paragraph 12C provides that the court or tribunal may in such cases order that the date on which he is shown on the register as ceasing to be liable may be earlier than the two year limitation imposed by Clause 8(3) of the Bill which provides that such an entry may only be backdated
412
two years from the date on which the register is amended to record that liability has ceased. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is so lucid that even I can understand him. Indeed, I am most grateful that we do not have too many of our professional surveyors in the Chamber this afternoon. The issues are so clear, and the need for the changes in the valuation tribunals so clear, that one cannot resist asking why the Government did not think about this when first drafting the Bill—or certainly at a much earlier stage than now.
Lord Renton: I have a rather different point to make. I should like to save the Secretary of State some trouble. If Members of the Committee will look at the first of this group of amendments—namely, Amendment No. 192A—they will see that the first paragraph is a mere recital, or reference back, to previous powers. Further, paragraph (2) reads:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that".
It then goes on to say what we that is, Parliament—are intending to do. Surely there is no need to have a regulation to repeat what is already written down. The same applies to paragraph (3) which says,
"The persons are the persons who, if the matter were to be the subject of an appeal to a tribunal, would be the parties to the appeal".
Again, there is no point in repeating that in regulations. Goodness knows there are quite enough regulations which must be made under the Bill. Therefore, if we can save the Secretary of State a little trouble it might also save Parliament some time, because the regulations will either be laid before Parliament (before they can be approved) or there will be an opportunity to pray against them. So may I suggest that in paragraph (2) the words,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that"
should be omitted?
As regards the other two amendments—namely, Amendments Nos. 192F and 192G—I support the principles behind them. I think that one cannot avoid having either regulations made by the Secretary of State, or rules of court which are made in the way that rules of court are normally made. I wonder whether my noble friend would be able to obtain some advice as to whether such rules will be rules of court, or ordinary regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for the remarks he has made. I think it is only fair to say that I wish in some ways I had had the opportunity to become a parliamentary counsel so that I would be able to answer adequately the points he has made. However, I shall of course draw his remarks to the attention of those who are involved in this matter. It must be said that the Government are always grateful for any suggestions as to how they may improve the drafting of legislation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 192AA:
Page 134, line 36, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
("(e) that some of the members (who may include the president) are to be appointed to the position of chairman, that the number to be appointed is to be stated by a prescribed person or persons, and that the appointments are to be made by the members themselves by a prescribed method or (if they default) by a prescribed person or persons;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment fulfils a commitment in relation to the method of appointment of the chairmen of valuation and community charge tribunals. At present, the chairman and deputy chairman of local valuation panels are elected by the members. When we were considering the formation of the new valuation and community charge tribunals, which will replace the local valuation panels and courts, we considered the possibility of appointing the president of the tribunal and the deputy chairmen (who will chair hearings) by a different method. The consultation document, Appeals and Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals, proposed that the president should be appointed by the Secretary of State and the chairmen should be appointed by the president.
The responses to the consultation document clearly demonstrated that both the members of the valuation panel service and other professional bodies considered this a retrograde step. We have accepted that view. In Committee in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced the Government's intention to retain the existing system of election by the membership. Schedule 14, paragraph 4, provides that the president is to be appointed by the members by the prescribed method. Regulations made under Schedule 14 will set out that method, which will be by election. We had hoped to make a similar provision by regulations for the election of the chairman, but it is not certain that the Bill, as drafted, gives us power to do that. Amendment No. 192AA makes it certain. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: One and a half cheers for democracy.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 192B to 192E:
Page 137, line 21, leave out ("or reduced").
Page 138, line 14, leave out ("or reduce").
Page 138, line 17, leave out ("or reduce").
Page 138, line 22, leave out ("or reduce").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 192B, 192C, 192D and 192E have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 192F:
Page 138, line 26, at end insert —
("Appeals
9A.—(1) Regulations under paragraph I above may include provision that—

(a) an appeal shall lie to the High Court on a question of law arising out of a decision or order which is given or made by a tribunal on an appeal under section 22 above;

414

(b) an appeal shall lie to the Lands Tribunal in respect of a decision or order which is given or made by a tribunal on an appeal under regulations under section 47 or 68 above.

(2) The regulations may include—

(a) provision as to the persons who may appeal to the High Court or the Lands Tribunal;

(b) provision authorising or requiring an appeal to the High Court or the Lands Tribunal to be dismissed if it is not initiated within a prescribed time;

(c) provision as to the powers of the High Court or the Lands Tribunal on an appeal to it (which may include provision allowing the tribunal's decision or order to be confirmed, varied, set aside, revoked or remitted, and provision allowing the making of any order the tribunal could have made);

(d) provision requiring a charging authority, the community charges registration officer or valuation officer for a charging authority, or the central valuation officer, to act in accordance with any order made by the High Court or the Lands Tribunal, and provision that paragraph 8 or 9 above is to have effect subject to such a requirement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 192G:
Page 138, line 46, leave out paragraph 12 and insert—
("12. Regulations under paragraph 3 above may include—

(a) provision for the winding up of local valuation courts or for their reconstitution as valuation and community charge tribunals;

(b) provision as to orders, which may include provision requiring the carrying out of an order made by a valuation and community charge tribunal in exercising jurisdiction conferred by the regulations;

(c) provision that an appeal shall lie to the Lands Tribunal in respect of a decision or order which is given or made by a valuation and community charge tribunal in exercising jurisdiction conferred by the regulations;

(d) provision as to the persons who may appeal to the Lands Tribunal, as to the time within which an appeal may be initiated, and as to the powers of the Lands Tribunal on an appeal to it;

(e) provision requiring the carrying out of an order made by the Lands Tribunal on an appeal to it.

12A. Regulations under paragraph 3A above may include—

(a) provision applying enactments relating to arbitration:

(b) provision that an award in an arbitration may include any order a valuation and community charge tribunal could have made in the matter concerned;

(c) provision requiring the carrying out of an order so included.

12B.—(1) Without prejudice to section 141(1) above, regulations under this Schedule may make different provision for cases where valuation and community charge tribunals exercise jurisdiction conferred on them by or under different provisions of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to section 141(2) above, regulations under this Schedule may include provision amending, adapting, repealing or revoking any provision of or made under the 1967 Act or any other Act.
12C.—(1) Where a tribunal, arbitrator, umpire or court deals with a matter falling within the jurisdiction conferred on tribunals by section 22 above, section 8(3) above shall not apply as regards the matter if the tribunal, arbitrator, umpire or court so orders.
(2) But sub-paragraph (1) above shall not have effect if the order is set aside on appeal.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 192H:
After Clause 135, insert the following new clause:
("Land occupied by private generator or supplier.
.No land occupied by a private generator or supplier shall be liable to be rated or included in any valuation list or in any rate

415
where that land is occupied or intended to be occupied solely or mainly for the purpose of extracting therefrom landfill gas as a source of energy for the generation of electricity.").
The noble Baroness said: The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is sorry that he is inadvertently unable to be here, so I beg leave to move Amendment No. 192H.
The purpose of the amendment is to exempt from rating landfill gas which is used to generate electricity. Landfill gas, a mixture of methane and other gases, is produced by bacterial decay of putrescible waste, such as household refuse, at waste disposal sites. There are over 1,000 of those sites in the United Kingdom. The gas is smelly. It kills vegetation and it can also be explosive. In one incident in Derbyshire, a house was totally destroyed and the occupants seriously injured.
Furthermore, gas may be given off for many years after the site has been closed. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution recently estimated that over 60 per cent. of currently active sites, and 75 per cent. of those closed in the past 10 years, are generating gas in sufficient quantities to require proper management to avoid their becoming a problem. There are various schemes for the removal and beneficial use of landfill gas. That trend has been encouraged by the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment. Public funds have been made available for research and demonstration projects.
One way to put landfill gas to good use is to produce electricity, using the gas to drive an alternator. At present, there is a handful of such projects in the United Kingdom. More are planned but are being delayed by various obstacles. Two of the problems faced by private generators are, first, that the price paid for their electricity by local boards is nearly 30 per cent. less than that paid to the CEGB: and, secondly, they have to pay 20 or 40 times more in rates than does the CEGB per unit of power sold. Those anomalies have been recognised by the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment and are not the target of the amendment, although they are severe disincentives.
The amendment seeks to remove, as I said, the additional hurdle faced by anyone who makes commercial use of landfill gas. He has to pay rates on land from which gas is extracted, on the principle that he is in beneficial occupation of that land. Most land and buildings are assessed in that way, with the interesting exception of agricultural land. There is a case for making a similar exception for landfill gas used for electricity production. No rates are being charged on land from which landfill gas is allowed to escape into the atmosphere or to surrounding land. Rates are being charged only on gas being put to a useful purpose. Many landfill gas sites are intended to be returned to agricultural land, and then, again, no rates will be charged.
I wish to make it clear that the amendment seeks to exempt from rating only the land from which the gas is being pumped, not the land under the buildings and the buildings which comprise the power station.
I hope an amendment whose appeal is so broad that it sports the names of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and myself will be irresistible to
416
the Minister! I hope he will agree that the extraction and proper disposal of landfill gas should be encouraged. It improves the land, helps to deal safely with a serious problem and contributes to the nation's energy requirements. The amendment would remove one of the disincentives to the development of worthwhile project. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I should like to come in by a side wind and refer to the extraction of methane gas used for the generation of electricity from agricultural sources. I am referring to manure. There is increasing interest from farmers in that process, although in some cases their enthusiasm has been a little diluted because there is a tendency for methane and other digestors to explode. However, as I said, there is interest among farmers for this alternative source of energy.
When the Minister responds to the amendment will he say how that response would relate to the production by farmers of methane gas from livestock waste products? Will he ensure that the way the Government intend to deal under the Bill with the extraction of methane gas from land, which was referred to when the amendment was moved, will not affect its extraction for agricultural purposes?
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 192H would be to exempt from rates any land from which landfill gas is extracted and used as a source of energy for electricity generation. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was sadly unable to be here, but the case was well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). Private electricity generators who extract and use landfill gas are penalised because the operation of extracting the gas is rated. There is no intrinsic difference between extracting landfill gas a source of energy and extracting coal or any other mineral. Those operations are all rateable.
The benefits derived from the extraction and use of landfill gas contribute to the rent which a tenant would be prepared to pay to occupy the site for the purpose of the business, whether that be to generate electricity or manufacture goods, and to that extent should add to rateable value. That is a fundamental principle of rating which we have no intention of changing. I accept that the extraction and use of landfill gas contributes to a cleaner environment and to the safeguarding of human life and buildings. The Government are also keen to encourage, and indeed actively support, the development of new sources of energy; but the rating system is not the vehicle for achieving those aims.
Private electricity generators are looking for comparable treatment in the payment of rates with the Central Electricity Generating Board, as the noble Baroness brought to the Committee's attention. The effect of the amendment would be to introduce considerable disparity between the rating of private generators using landfill gas and other private and public generators. It would discriminate against other industries which also use landfill gas either directly or indirectly in a manufacturing process or for heating.
The comparable treatment of private generators is being dealt with by a working group set up to review

417
the rating of the electricity supply industry. The Government have already agreed in principle that all private generators exporting electricity to the supply distribution network should be rated on a comparable basis to the rest of the electricity supply industry, but it is essential that that is also considered in the light of the proposed privatisation of the industry.
There is one small feature of the rating which the noble Baroness did not bring to the Committee's attention. It is that there is a depletion allowance against the rates which equates to some 50 per cent. That allowance goes some way towards alleviating the problem. With regard to the position of agriculture, I shall have to get in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to thank the Minister for his reply. I am glad that he is in favour of a cleaner environment and also safeguarding life. I shall read with interest what he said about the amendment discriminating between those generating from landfill gas and others. I feel that perhaps there is a case for a little positive discrimination. I accept what the Minister said about the sliding scale and I shall read carefully what he said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his support. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Schedule 15 [Amendments]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 139, line 44, at end insert—
("Local Government Act 1972 c. 70
. In section 147(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 (expenses of principal councils) at the end there shall be inserted "and in a district in which there are one or more parish or community councils the district council shall, after consultation with the parish or community councils, declare by resolution such part as is appropriate of any expenses incurred by it for the benefit of part only of the district in the exercise of any function, (which is also being exercised by one or more of the parish or community councils) to be special expenses chargeable only on such part of its area as benefits from the expenditure and is specified in the resolution".").
The noble Baroness said: There has been an ongoing problem for many years between the district councils and their parish and community councils over the financing of the expenditure by districts on functions which are also functions of the parish councils. The greatest difficulty has always been in those districts where not all the district is covered by parishes. Perhaps the best example I can give is the one of street lighting. If the parish council provides the lighting, as many of them do, the cost falls on the ratepayers within the parish. If the district council provides the lighting for the major town within the area, then the cost is borne by all the district ratepayers, including those parish ratepayers who are paying for their own street lights.
Under Section 147 of the Local Government Act 1972, a district may charge the cost of street lighting on part only of its district. It need not charge the parish areas, which are paying for their own lights, the additional cost of providing the street lighting
418
over the rest of the district. But very few of the districts have actually done this. The Government have always argued that it is a matter for local decision because there are so many local variations that it is impossible to legislate in general terms.
In the discussion on the Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act 1981—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not in his place now—I raised some of these problems on behalf of some of the Yorkshire parish councils. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was extremely sympathetic. He went to a lot of trouble and I believe that he tried very hard to come to a satisfactory conclusion. However, if it is left as a matter for local decision and negotiation, the districts are under no real pressure to be fair to the parishes. They can allege that it is difficult to decide who should pay and who should not. They will end by failing to make any arrangements at all. I believe that if we could adopt something like the amendment that I am suggesting it would preserve the local decision-making, accepting that there are many local variations from parish to parish. It would supply the necessary pressure on districts by requiring them at least to consult with their parishes and to make some arrangements whereby the district and parish councils have concurrent powers.
I believe that the requirement to make some arrangement will lead to many more satisfactorily negotiated arrangements and local schemes. It will make it possible for the parish councils to exercise their powers locally, free from the pressure to avoid double rating which they often have to face at the moment, by surrendering their powers to the districts.
It has often been said in this Chamber that decisions ought to be taken at the lowest possible level. I know that if the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, were here this afternoon—unfortunately he is not—as president of the National Association of Local Councils he would be supporting me in this amendment. I urge the Minister to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to offer our support for this amendment, but I bet that the noble Baroness could not read it all without drawing breath. It is one sentence ten lines long, which cannot be the most desirable precedent for legislation.
I am sure that the National Association of Local Councils has been well advised on this matter. Certainly the objective of the amendment, which is to provide financial justice as between different parts of a district council area without taking away the local responsibility for its own actions, is entirely laudable. I hope that the Government will find it possible to agree at least to the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: Under the provisions of Clause 30 it is open to a district in either England or Wales to reduce its own charges in those areas where a parish or community council provides services which elsewhere the district itself provides. Thus if both the parish and the district provide the service in question to the same level and with equal efficiency, and the district makes such a reduction, the charge payer in

419
the parish and the charge payers in the other parts of the district's area would have the same charge. If the parish provides a higher level of service than the district, then the parish charge payers would face higher charges.
However, we have some sympathy with the concerns of parishes. I accept that, should a district decide not to reduce its charges in this way, those in parished areas may pay higher charges than those in non-parished areas. As my noble friend said on Monday evening, in order to protect those in parished areas from being unfairly treated, the Government propose to take this matter up with the Association of District Councils and will seek to agree with the association guidelines for councils to give some specific recognition to parish services when setting the community charge.
In view of what my noble friend and the noble Baroness said on this matter on Monday night, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stedman: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I said thank you to his colleague on Monday night and I say thank you to him this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Amendments No. 193A, 193B and 193C have already been debated. Is it the Committee's wish that they should be moved en bloc?
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments No. 193A, 193B and 193C:
Page 140, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
("6.—(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall be amended as follows:
(1A) The following shall be substituted for section 12(3) (accounts subject to audit)—").
Page 140, line 18, at end insert—
("(1B) The following shall be inserted after section 25A (power of auditor to issue prohibition order)—
"Restriction on power to issue prohibition order.
25AA.—(1) In a case where—

(a) report is made under section 118(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (the 1988 Act), and

(b) copies of the report are sent in accordance with section 118(4) of the 1988 Act,

during the relevant period no prohibition order may be issued as regards any decision, course of action or item of account which led to the report being made.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the relevant period is the period—

(a) beginning with the day on which copies of the report are sent, and

(b) ending with the day (if any) on which the body's consideration of the report under section 119(2) of the 1988 Act begins.

(3) If section 119(3) of the 1988 Act is not complied with, it is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above."
(1C) In section 29 (miscellaneous functions of Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted "or
(c) for certifying the body's calculation under paragraph 5(6)(b) of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 of the
420
amount of its non-domestic rating contribution for a financial year, and for certifying the amount calculated."").
Page 140, line 19, leave out ("This paragraph") and insert ("Subparagraphs (1A) and (1C) above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 193ZCA is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 193CA or 194.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 193ZCA:
Page 141, leave out lines 3 to 17.
The noble Lord said: While I am moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 193ZCA, 193CA, 194, 194ZD, 194ZH to 194ZK, 206A and 206B. I hope I have got that right.
The amendment proposes to take out lines 3 to 17 in Schedule 15, page 141. This is one of the general powers which the Government are very keen on inserting. So far as one can see, more or less, if the Government decided that they wanted to get rid of mice they would take power to abolish all animals of any sort, subject to a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe. That is our complaint about the very wide-ranging nature of the powers.
The Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe the principles and:
"Regulations made under subsection (8A) …
may be made so as to apply differently to different areas or in relation to different cases of classes of case;
may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions",
and so on. What might as well be said is that the Secretary of State shall take over all valuation of all lands and heritages, which will be an interesting set of principles.
As the Minister no doubt knows, the Scottish Assessors' Association has expressed great concern about the wide powers being taken in this clause. It is understood that this is intended to deal with the difficulties of the contractor's principle and the decapitalisation rate. But if that is the intended mischief to be attacked why not say so and confine it to that'? Why give the Secretary of State these wide-ranging powers? The purpose of harmonisation of decapitalisation rates is all very well and we should support the Government if that is their intention. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—one of whose amendments is in this small list—is also concerned with the same principle. But again, if that is what is aimed at why not say so? Why allow anything to be done which the Secretary of State may in any way consider at that particular moment for that particular case to be suitable? The Secretary of State under these powers, as far as I can see, could say that the BP plant at Grangemouth will be assessed on principle A and that the Esso plant at Mossmorran will be assessed on principle B. It is as extraordinary as that.
I appreciate that the government Amendment No. 193CA does restrict this to a certain extent, but not by very much. My criticisms would remain in principle the same. The Minister may be relieved to know that I have no objection at all to his Amendments Nos. 194ZD and 194ZH to 194 ZK—

421
they are in the same group—and Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B. If he is too shattered by my agreement on that, he can no doubt recover and agree with me that the amendment which I propose is very reasonable. He can also come back with something that restricts the amendment to what he really intends to do, which is to deal with the harmonisation of decapitalisation rates. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: For the first time in discussions in Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill I find myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The effect of his amendment would be to scrap what is achieved in the amendment which follows, standing in the name of the Government. As has been pointed out, if the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—
Lord Morton of Shuna: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I wish to say that my amendment was a probing amendment which was down long before the Government managed to think up their amendment. It might have been different if the government amendment had been down first.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have heard many apologies for amendments in this Chamber. That is the latest one. I accept it in the spirit in which it is given. It nevertheless remains true that, if this amendment is carried, the present totally unsatisfactory and anomalous position in the comparison of Scottish rating with English rating will not be solved. I wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, with whom I discussed my amendment—the amendment which gives greater powers to the Secretary of State not only to prescribe the principles but also to prescribe the principles and the rules in connection with the application of rating in arriving at the value of lands and heritages under this part of the Bill.
The Committee will observe that I put down an amendment suggesting that the word "rules" should be added, thereby strengthening the powers of the Secretary of State. I did so on the advice of counsel who examined the Bill and the latest appeals in connection with this matter. There was an appeal by ICI to the Lands Tribunal against the rating valuation of the Central region. ICI mentioned the comparison between the rating of its plant at Grangemouth and its plant carrying out the same process in Huddersfield.
The Lands Tribunal decided that because of the different basis of assessment in Scotland compared with that in England, the appeal was irrelevant and threw it out. So long as that basis continues—and that is what would happen if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, were to be carried—there would be no change in the existing arrangements. The existing provisions are being changed by the government amendment which follows and which I strongly support. I am encouraged by representations I have received from the associations of chambers of commerce, the CBI in Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the chemical associations which are
422
affected. The national chambers of commerce which embrace England as well as Scotland also see the wisdom and fairness of my amendment and support it. There is no basis at the moment in law for cross-Border comparisons. The amendment to be moved by the Government that has my support at least gives the Secretary of State powers to prescribe the rules as well as the principles covering the assessment. Accordingly I very much support it; I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
Lord Renton: We find ourselves in an unavoidable position having passed the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act last year and being anxious, as I know the Government are, not to have unnecessary disparity between what we do for England and Wales and what we have done for Scotland. Nevertheless, owing to the immense complexity of some aspects of the matter, it does become necessary to make quite considerable amendments in the Scottish law, however much we may regret it.
When I first looked at paragraph 9 of Schedule 15 I was surprised that the 1956 Act practice under which has been well established for over 30 years—should be so drastically amended by the Secretary of State in regulations that could even introduce new principles. Normally when principles are involved we try to provide for them in the main legislation, and not by regulations.
However, in the nature of things, it may be necessary to do something on these lines. 1 naturally read Amendment No. 193CA standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden with hope to see if we could somehow mitigate the introduction of new principles in 30 year-old well established legislation in Scotland in order that there should be no disparity between what we are doing for Scotland and what we are doing for England and Wales.
I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Sanderson says. Fortunately, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has been moved as a probing amendment. So it may well be that between now and Report some better and more conventional way of achieving the Government's intention might be found instead of this rather drastic proposal which, on the face of it, may be necessary because, as I say, in the nature of things and in the timing of things we cannot always have everything done perfectly and in the way that we should wish.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): We are considering a large group of amendments dealing with a number of aspects of rating and valuation. As I shall explain in a moment, much of what the amendments contain is of an essentially technical nature. It is convenient that the first three amendments in the group deal with what I think we would all agree is the most important matter; namely, the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe principles of valuation.
Amendment No. 193ZCA in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Morton, probes the purpose of the provision contained in paragraph 9 of Schedule 15 to the Bill. The noble

423
Lord, Lord Taylor, has raised questions relating to the effectiveness of the wording. Perhaps it will be helpful if I first explain the purpose of the provision and outline the area in which the regulation-making power might be used. Basically it provides a means whereby the Secretary of State, if necessary, can introduce measures by regulations to further harmonisation of valuation practices north and south of the Border.
We do not envisage that wide use will be made of that power. However, there is one area of difference which requires to be brought into line before the 1990 revaluation and where the power might be used to achieve that. I refer to the decapitalisation rate used in the contractor's principle valuations in Scotland and the contractor's test valuations in England and Wales. The starting point to removing the differences in valuation practice between Scotland and England and Wales has been technical discussions between the Scottish Assessors' Association and the Inland Revenue Valuation Office. As I explained on Tuesday, their discussions have made significant progress.
I accept that in these classes of property for which there is little or no rental market the difference in valuation practice north and south of the Border is more fundamental. The properties, which include refineries and chemical works, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are valued under the contractor's principle in Scotland and the contractor's test in England and Wales. Since 1973 the decapitalisation rates applied in determining the rateable value have diverged significantly north and south of the Border. We have undertaken to consider prescribing a common rate in order to bring valuations made on the contractor's basis north and south of the Border more into line.
It is clear that those affected would like the proposed power of prescription to be used. The Committee will have seen the briefing paper supplied by the Chemical Industries Association, for example, and we take those representations extremely seriously. We have now had the opportunity to consider the wording of paragraph 9 more closely. There may be doubt as to whether empowering the Secretary of State to prescribe the principles to be applied in arriving at a net annual value would in fact allow him to determine a decapitalisation rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has reached the same conclusion. His amendment, Amendment No. 194, would allow prescription of rules or principles. However, in case there may be similar doubts as to whether the decapitalisation rate is a rule, we consider it desirable to go further. The amendment has been drawn to the attention of assessors and others with an interest. We shall be taking into account before Report stage any comments we receive on whether the provisions now appear to be fully adequate for the purpose. Given that the wording of our amendment also includes rules and is designed for the same purpose, I shall invite the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to withdraw Amendment No. 194 in due course.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, would delete the provision
424
from the Bill. The effect of that would be to remove the power enabling the Secretary of State to introduce measures aimed at promoting harmonisation. The Committee will be aware of the considerable pressure on the Scottish business community to bring the rating system north and south of the Border into line. Yet the amendments would limit the steps which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State might take in order to achieve such harmonisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, mentioned representations from the Scottish Assessors' Association and its criticism that the power is too wide. I recognise the concerns of the association, which it has expressed directly to the Scottish Office. The power of prescription proposed in paragraph 9 of Schedule 15 is very wide, covering the whole range of valuation and not just the contractor's principle cases on which our discussion has tended to focus. The power is intended to be wide. If it is to be helpful in promoting harmonisation, it must be capable of use in relation to any part of the valuation system where differences emerge and where prescription of principles, rules and considerations could be helpful.
That does not mean that the power will necessarily be widely or frequently used. As I have repeatedly made clear, my understanding is that the technical discussions on harmonisation are making good progress. However, the representations from the assessors also imply that the basis of valuation would be for ever changing. It would be foolish to give a guarantee that the new power will never be used between revaluations since some glaring anomaly might emerge which could easily be put right. However, I am glad to have the opportunity to make it clear that our general approach is that when the power is used—I emphasise again that we do not envisage widespread use—it should be at times of revaluation so that assessors are able to operate on a consistent and clear basis through each five-year period.
Mention was made of the situation north and south of the Border. It must be recognised that harmonisation is a two-way street. Therefore, provision needs to be made for changes in the principles of valuation to be applied south of the Border as well as north of the Border under the power we are discussing. That is taken care of in Schedule 6 to the Bill which deals with valuation for rating in England and Wales. I confirm that to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
Section 19 of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 was intended to enable Scottish assessors to use valuations south of the Border as evidence and a basis on which to determine the valuation of certain subjects which would otherwise have been valued according to the contractor's principle. The assessors have not done so. A number of cases are currently subject to appeal. Until the appeals are settled, it is premature to say that Section 19 has failed. I cannot speculate as to the outcome of the appeals, which I understand are being considered in the Land Valuation Appeal Court this month. Obviously I cannot comment in detail on the substance of matters which are before the court. The

425
outcome of the cases will be one of the matters which we shall be taking into account in considering what use it will be appropriate to make of the new powers proposed in paragraph 9 of Schedule 15.
I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was in agreement with Amendments Nos. 194ZD, 194ZH, 194ZJ, 194ZK and 206A. I should like to comment briefly on the government amendments. There are no changes of substance. As the Committee will be aware, there are considerable problems in applying conventional valuation methods to the lands and heritages of some public utilities. The problem is more acute where they consist of network undertakings crossing several valuation areas. Perhaps I have said enough at this stage on that subject.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, replies, let me say that I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend in this difficult mattter. Therefore I do not expect him to give an answer now to a point of substance which I feel I should make. He has spoken of harmonisation of the law north and south of the Border. That is obviously a good thing to try to achieve. However, if we look at line 10 on page 141, we see that:
"Regulations … may be made so as to apply differently to different areas or in relation to different cases or classes of case";
that is, the principles are applied differently. For all we know it means applying different principles to different areas and different cases. That seems to me to be the opposite of harmonisation. Differences and harmonisation are opposites. We are trying to achieve harmonisation.
Therefore although I do not expect an answer from my noble friend at the moment, as he has said that he wants harmonisation and will think about all of this between now and Report stage, I hope that he will bear that apparent incongruity in mind.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: As is usually the case on this kind of point, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
If one looks at what is left after the Government's amendment to paragraph 9 on page 141, as the noble Lord has said, anything can be done to any principle in any particular case. I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House are all in favour of harmonisation and we want to achieve it. However, if one considers Schedule 6—as I am sure the Minister has considered it in great detail—it is apparent that it does not give the Secretary of State in England the same power as the Secretary of State is taking to himself in Scotland under Schedule 15. Paragraph 2(9) of Schedule 6 states that:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations providing that in arriving at an amount under sub-paragraph (1) above"—
which is the notional rental—
"prescribed principles are to be applied; and the regulations may include provision for the preservation of such principles, privileges, and provisions for the making of valuations on exceptional principles, as apply or applied for the purposes of the 1967 Act".
That is different from the Secretary of State's sweeping power to say that the principles will be what
426
the Secretary of State for Scotland says the principles are to be in any particular case at any particular time, and for Tuesday it may be different from Wednesday and for one ICI works it may be different from another.
I think that this is another example of the Government taking power to do what they like when they like. This House or both Houses of Parliament should be very careful of this kind of thing. Principles should be set down in Acts of Parliament; they should not be suddenly narrated in regulations which are subject to the negative procedure. That is a very serious point.
There were valuation Acts in 1956 for Scotland and in 1967 for England and Wales. The principles in Schedule 6 are apparently to be upheld but the principles for Scotland are to be abolished at the whim of whoever may he Secretary of State for Scotland. That will not do if Parliament is to retain any power. That is the purpose behind the probing amendment—which I shall withdraw in a moment.
What is wrong with saying on the face of the Bill that we want harmonisation between England and Scotland on the contractor's principle and the contractor's test and on decapitalisation rates and the Secretary of State can make regulations to achieve that end? If that was what was proposed I should have no objection and nobody on this side of the Chamber would either. But that is not what is said. What is said is that anything anywhere in Scotland can be valued on any principle or non-principle that the Secretary of State wishes to put in a regulation. That cannot be right.
That is the reason why I moved this probing amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will come back with a more coherent answer to the problem which gives Parliament some power before the next stage of the Bill. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 193CA is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 194.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 193CA:
Page 141, line 8, leave out from ("prescribe") to end of line 9 and insert—

("(a) the manner in which and the principles, rules and considerations by reference to which the net annual value of lands and heritages is to be arrived at under subsection (8) above;

(b) that the principles, rules and considerations referred to in paragraph (a) above or any of them shall be such as are determined in accordance with the regulations.").

The noble said: We have discussed this amendment at length. I should like to make one point clear which I do not think was made clear earlier. I am very glad—although I sometimes find it difficult to understand—that the other side of the Chamber in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is in favour of harmonisation. That is good.
I should like to pick up one point which was made in the debate which referred to the provisions for England and Wales. I said that it had to be recognised

427
that harmonisation is a two-way street. Provision therefore needs to be made for changes in the principles of valuation to be applied south of the Border as well as north, as I think we all understand. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has clearly pointed out, that is taken care of in Schedule 6 to the Bill which deals with valuation for rating in England and Wales. Paragraphs 2(8) and 2(9) provide that the Secretary of State may prescribe assumptions to be made and principles to be applied in the valuation process. If Ministers were to decide to prescribe uniform decapitalisation rates throughout Great Britain I understand that it is by means of those powers that the prescription would be made in relation to England and Wales.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. If one wants to harmonise and have the same decapitalisation rate, why for heaven's sake not just say so instead of introducing this power which allows the Government to do anything at all from Land's End to John O'Groats?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We well understand that major difficulties have appeared in trying to arrive at harmonisation. The Government for their part looked very carefully at the kind of amendment which would give the power required to assist in that harmonisation. I shall not withdraw Amendment No. 193CA. We have debated it. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Since the passing of this amendment would exclude my Amendment No. 194 I should like to say that my amendment is entirely covered by the government amendment and the insertion of the words "rules or".
I should also like to say that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, this afternoon in which he accepted the substance of my amendment will be widely welcomed by the business community in Scotland. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to say that we should start again with a new Bill aimed at harmonisation and all its complications. That could take a great deal of time and would probably be impossible in the legislative programme before us.
The amendment we are dealing with now represents some progress towards abolishing or limiting an existing anomaly. That anomaly is a total disincentive to Scottish business and to inward investment and is punishing Scottish business. We are taking the opportunity in this Bill to do something about it. To that extent I very much welcome the government amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is very interesting on this subject. Of course he will appreciate that anything that is said in this Chamber cannot be founded on in any court. He will also appreciate that under the powers in either Schedule 6 or Schedule 15 the Secretary of State can make regulations which this House or the other place will have no opportunity to amend. We can either reject it or let it go. What we are dealing with here is a provision allowing the Secretary of State—the
428
Government—to legislate on a very wide and important field and withdrawing from Parliament any opportunity to consider that seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may be very happy with that but I for one am not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 194ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZB:
Page 141, line 17, at end insert—
("Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (c. 49)
. After section 28A of the Registration of Births. Deaths, and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Intimation of death to Community Charges Registration Officer.
23B.—(1) The district registrar for each registration district shall furnish to the Community Charges Registration Officer of each region or islands area within which the registration district wholly or partly falls such particulars of such deaths as may be prescribed by regulations made under this section.
(2) Regulations under this section may provide that the duty imposed on a district registrar by subsection (1) above shall, instead, be a duty imposed on the Registrar General.
(3) Regulations under this section may make provision as to the time at which and manner in which particulars are to be furnished under this section, and may make different provision for different cases or classes of case.
(4) Regulations made under this section shall be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed this amendment briefly.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, says that we have already discussed this amendment. Unless I am totally wrong, I do not think that we have discussed it. The amendment concerns the registration of births, deaths and marriages. Before I try and say what is wrong with it, perhaps the noble Lord can say what is right with it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I apologise to the Committee. I thought that the number mentioned was 194ZD. Amendment No. 194ZB is brought forward following an approach from the Scottish Assessors' Association on behalf of the community registration officers. It inserts into the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 a new section which imposes on registrars of births, deaths and marriages a duty to supply to community charges registration officers details of people whose deaths are registered in their district. District registrars will be required to supply prescribed details of such persons to each community charges registration officer whose area includes at least part of the registrar's district. Registration officers will therefore receive details of some deaths which have occurred in their areas but which are of persons resident elsewhere. It will be for registration officers to convey the details of such deaths to the appropriate community charges registration officer under the standard arrangements by which registration officers may exchange information.

429
The new section also empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations providing that the duty imposed on district registrars shall instead be imposed on the Registrar General if, at some future time, it were considered more convenient for the information to be processed centrally before distribution to registration officers. What we have in mind is that computerisation may continue to go forward at its present pace.
The new section, together with the provision in paragraph 22 of Schedule 15 to the Bill requiring executors to notify registration officers of deaths, will facilitate the process of keeping the community charges register up to date. And this in turn will ensure that notices issued by registration officers are not sent out bearing the names of persons who have died—a matter about which some concern was expressed at an earlier stage of the Bill in another place.
This is a useful amendment which has been discussed and agreed with the Registrar General for Scotland. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 194ZB, Amendment No. 194ZBA:
In section 28B(1), line 1, leave out ("district registrar for each registration district") and insert ("Registrar General").
The noble Lord said: In order to make sense of Amendment No. 194ZBA one must also look at Amendments Nos. 194ZB and 194ZBC which all run together, so to speak. Before I speak to my amendments, perhaps I may refer to the fact that the Minister mentioned the duty on executors to tell the community charges registration officer of deaths. The noble Lord said that the provision was to be found somewhere in Schedule 15. I cannot find it at the moment but no doubt he will be able to tell me precisely where it is.
Does the noble Lord appreciate that in many cases people may be appointed executors without ever knowing that it has been done? What penalties fall on executors if they fail in this dire duty? Are they sent to prison for life? What happens to them? Perhaps the Minister can explain. It seems a ridiculous burden to put on executors. Many people in Scotland die leaving no material estate and nobody takes any part in winding up whatever is left. It just happens without anybody being very much concerned.
I am not surprised that the assessors' association put forward this proposal to help the community charges registration officers, since the community charges registration officers are the assessors. It is not therefore surprising that they thought of this measure. Nor am I surprised to hear that the Registrar General is in favour of it, because it entails no action on his part. It has nothing to do with him. The duty falls on the district registrar. The Registrar General will not have to pay for it and as the Registrar General is part of central government, no doubt St. Andrew's House is wholly in favour of the proposal.
The one body which does not appear to have been consulted is the district council. The district councils
430
are required to pay for the costs of the district registrars and the costs of sorting the deaths into the various community charge areas. To send out the information will amount to something. Will the Minister arrange for St. Andrew's House to pick up the bill or can he say who is to pay for that service? Why should it land on the districts? My amendments propose that the Registrar General should be responsible.
We have no objection in principle to the registrar sending out information to the assessors, poll tax register holders and all the other relevant bodies, but the cost should not be added to those costs which St. Andrew's House tells local authorities that they should not have incurred. If the Registrar General is happy with this arrangement—and no doubt he is told about every death eventually—he can sort the information and send it out. The Registrar General will no doubt be happy to do so and will perform the task even more efficiently once his department becomes more fully computerised. Having told the Committee the purpose of the amendments, I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has thought about the time element involved. I quite understand that once the whole procedure is computerised and the names of those who have died travel as fast as light to the centre, it will all happen with some speed. However, it is extremely important that people who become widows or widowers should not receive the community charge bill of their deceased husband or wife in a short space of time after they have died. I should have thought that speed is of the essence. Therefore, until the computer programme is organised and everything linked up, the notification has to be local. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister has anything to say about that.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may say in answer to the noble Baroness that, of course, it has not been stated. We are told as usual that regulations may be made under subsection (3) of the amendment. We do not know what will happen. The regulations may say that the district registrar will inform the community charges registration officer within six months, but we do not know that. On the face of it there does not seem to be any anxiety that this should be done quickly but only that the information should be accurate.
The amendment says nothing about time. If the Minister will assure me that local authorities which incur extra expense from meeting the district registrar's duties under these regulations will have those costs met by central government, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I cannot imagine that this exercise would be very costly. It may be, but I should not have thought so. Surely it would not be possible for this to be done speedily at the moment if the procedure were centralised. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morton, I have a good deal of faith in Scottish local authorities. I am sure that they will perform the task in a sensible way. If it is done locally it can be

431
done speedily; but if the procedure is centralised, as the noble Lord's amendment suggests, will it not slow the whole thing down? Or am I misunderstanding the point?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My understanding is that with computers it does not matter how far away from each other they are; they can be linked up. If it is not on computer it will take as long as it takes someone to gather the information together and put it into a letter. If it is sent from Edinburgh by first-class post, according to the Post Office it should reach anywhere in Scotland in much the same time as it will take from anywhere else.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for explaining his amendments to my amendment. First, I should explain to the Committee why we consider it necessary to impose on district registrars the duty to provide information about deaths but to have a power to make regulations transferring that duty to the Registrar General. It is clearly important that details of deaths are notified to registration officers as soon as possible after they occur so that the register can be kept up to date, and so that early action can be taken to ensure that communications about community charge matters are not issued addressed to persons who have died.
Under the present arrangements, processing information about deaths centrally prior to its distribution to registration officers would involve a four-week to six-week delay—I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who raised this matter —between the death being registered and the information about it being passed to the registration officer. That is why our amendment provides for information to be passed directly from district registrars to registration officers.
As the registration service's computer systems are developed, however, the time may well come when it will be administratively simpler, and not involve any undue delay, for information to be collected, processed and disseminated to individual registration officers centrally rather than individual district registrars. That is why we propose that the Secretary of State should have a power to make regulations transferring the duty to provide information from district registrars to the Registrar General.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked about the duties of executors, and about paragraph 22 of Schedule 15. There are no specific penalties. The change was made simply in order to avoid notification being sent to dead persons. The sanction upon executors is that as long as a deceased's name remains on the register there will be a liability to pay the personal community charge, which will be required to be paid by the deceased's estate.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, raised the question of costs. I am sure that this was at the root of these amendments. Community charge registration officers are employed by the same authorities as employ district registrars.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Is that right? Community charge registration officers are employed by the regions or the islands councils. The district registrars are employed by the district councils. Is that not right? Therefore you are putting a cost on the district councils to supply information to the regions.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It seems as though the noble Lord is correct. I should like to check that point before I confirm that he is correct.
However, the provision of information about deaths direct to registration officers will greatly simplify the task of keeping the community charge register up to date. The new duty on district registrars is therefore, if anything, likely to result in net savings for authorities. The important point on which the noble Lord would like me to comment is this. Any cost which results will be taken into account through the revenue support grant mechanism. That is the crucial point.
Perhaps I may clear up one other point. District registrars are employed by regions and islands.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My information, which comes from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, is that they are employed by districts. However, no doubt that can be checked.
My understanding is that after I move house I have a certain period of time in which I can backdate my move, and receive a repayment of my community charge in respect of that residence. We discussed that some time last year. Is the Minister saying that if somebody dies, the executors may remain liable to pay that dead person's community charge until they notify the community charge registration officer? That cannot be right.
The Minister seemed to say that. I feel sure that he is wrong. Even this Government would not have tried that one on. The late and much lamented Lord Ross of Marnock would never have allowed them to get away with it if they had. There cannot be a liability after death. The Minister must be wrong. Perhaps he will look at what he appears to have said and consider that point again.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall look again at that point and see what the position is. Backdating, which is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, will be sorted out in due course. However, the ending of the liability would then be backdated.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 194ZBA to Amendment No. 194ZB.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 194ZBB and 194ZBC not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 194ZB agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZC:
Page 141, line 17, at end insert—
("Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (c. 52)
In section 181 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (scope of provisions relating to interests of owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this subsection, substitute for any reference in these provisions to "annual value" or "hereditament" such other reference as he may consider appropriate; and such regulations may make such supplemental or consequential amendments of this Act or of any other enactment whether passed before or after this Act as the Secretary of State thinks fit.".").
The noble Lord said: The first grouping of rating and valuation amendments that we discussed today included a number of provisions concerned with the replacement of various references to rating and valuation matters which are contained in other statutes. At that stage I explained the general background.
The present amendment before the Committee, which we are considering separately, deals with the same general area. The provision in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to which reference is made deals with the scope of certain provisions relating to planning blight. They define the properties for which compensation is available by the use of an upper limit of annual value as shown in the valuation roll. The relevant definitions contain references to "annual value" and "hereditament" which are drafted in a form which makes them unsuitable either for the simple substitution of rateable values as at 1st April 1989 as would result from Section 5 of the 1987 Act in its original form or for the straightforward application of the provisions now contained in paragraph 13 which allow for other factors to be inserted. That is the only reason a separate amendment is made in relation to this provision.
I must emphasise that the move away from references which depend on the rating system in this, as in other enactments, does not necessarily imply any change of policy in relation to the operation of those enactments.
I think it would be premature to speculate in detail on the way in which references to annual value, for example, might be changed, but one obvious possibility would be capital value. I emphasise, however, that our objective in seeking replacements for the rating references will be to ensure that the provisions which in this case, I may say, appear to be little used operate to broadly the same effect as at present. There is certainly no intention to broaden or to limit their scope. I would also point out that the present provisions allow the Secretary of State to change the upper limits by order, so concern about changing the basis of the limit is, I have to say, somewhat academic. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This is one of the appalling amendments on which the Government seem to be keen. The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this subsection, substitute for any reference in these provisions to 'annual
434
value' or 'hereditament' such other reference as he may consider appropriate; and any such regulations may make such supplemental or consequential amendments of this Act or of any other enactment whether passed before or after this Act as the Secretary of State thinks fit"
In other words, it is another power which gives the Secretary of State power by regulation to rewrite the law and amend any Act which Parliament has passed.
It is quite bizarre to include it at this stage. It is even more bizarre when, as the Minister is aware, in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act there exists a provision concerning the way the matter should be dealt with. The Minister is moving the Committee to approve an amendment providing that the people who are allowed to apply in respect of planning blight can be varied in any way the Secretary of State may at any time think fit.
It is a ridiculous proposal and it becomes even more ridiculous when the Minister suggests that the question of which properties apply for planning blight and which do not will be fixed by capital value. Who will fix the capital value? We abolished valuation of domestic rating, so why bring back capital value? Who will assess them and at what time? Are we in Scotland to have a register of capital values for domestic property and a register of rental values for non-domestic property? It seems to be absurd. The amendment is an appalling example of giving the Secretary of State a blank sheet and allowing him to do whatever he wishes.
The noble Lord appeared to say that planning blight provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 were not used in Scotland; I can assure him that they were. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the same Bench as the Minister may be able to give him the same information. It will not do suddenly to change the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act and say that the Secretary of State will make regulations which vary those who may apply for planning blight without telling Parliament what the variation will be. On those grounds I oppose the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to try to pick his legalistic way through what he believes to be unnecessary provisions. As I made clear, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can change the limits now by way of regulations. Therefore I believe that the concern expressed by the noble Lord is quite unjustified—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As a non-lawyer I should like to take exception to the words "legalistic" which the Minister applied to my noble friend. We are dealing with the law.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope that we are dealing with the law. Part of the liberty of a subject is to have the law clearly defined. We are not even told of the basis for this. At least Section 181 of the 1972 Act stated that it would be on the basis of annual values. As far as I am aware, the Secretary of State can make regulations, providing that it will depend on the political views of the occupant, on the number of windows or chimneys in the house or on anything

435
else. This is the kind of power to which we are continually objecting. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is no longer in his place. However, I should like to remind the Minister of what he said about 20 minutes ago. Exactly the same point is arising again.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The amendment concerns a reference to incidental and consequential provisions. The purpose of that is quite simply to enable us to trace through other parts of the 1972 Act and certain consequential references in the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 to annual value and hereditament which are a consequence of the references which are the subject of the main amendment. Any other approach would involve a vast number of detailed amendments appearing in primary legislation. I am confident that what we are doing in the amendment is entirely justified.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister has failed to say what effect the amendment will have on Section 5 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act. That provides a basis for applying annual values where they are applied by other Acts. Why change it? We already have it in Section 5 of last year's Act. What is the point of the change?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We could carry on for a long time with this matter but I shall read carefully what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I do not withdraw what I have said. However, if the Government ought to consider any factor that the noble Lord has raised, we shall do so. In the meantime I remain convinced that the Committee should agree to Amendment No. 194ZC.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should like to make an announcement about a correction. The number of Peers voting in the last Division was incorrectly announced. The Tellers agree that the numbers voting Not-Content should have been 129 and not 130.
Lord Hesketh: I suggest that this is a suitable moment to break for dinner and that we return at five minutes past eight. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill
7.7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Noble Lords who follow such matters will be aware that the Bill was piloted through another place by Mr. Andrew Mackay. I have the pleasure and
436
privilege of carrying out the same task in your Lordships' House. It will have been noted that, although there were vigorous discussions and changes to the Bill in another place, it was finally given full approval by all sides of the House. That applies especially to the Home Office Minister, the honourable Douglas Hogg, who made many helpful suggestions. I should like to place on record my gratitude and that of others to him for his attitude on this matter.
The Bill's main purpose is to bring under the licensing regime the sale of alcohol from the backs of lorries and other similar points of sale. The significant aim of the Bill is that all sales of alcohol should be treated as retail sales, and thus are subject to the licensing laws, unless they fall within the scope of the exemptions set out in Clause 1. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 1(1) prescribe various exemptive sales, whereas paragraph (e) deals with quantity. If the nature of the transaction is such that it falls within paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), or if the quantity falls within paragraph (e), it is an exempted quantity or sale. Paragraphs (a) to (d) are probably what most people would describe as wholesale transactions—that is to say, a sale to another trader for the purpose of his trade, a sale to a registered club for the purpose of the club, a sale to a canteen or mess or a sale to the holder of an occupational permission. Each such transaction is properly regarded as a wholesale transaction to which it would not be right to apply the full rigour of the licensing laws.
Paragraph (e) deals with quantity, to exclude what is defined as wholesale quantity from the full rigours of the licensing laws. It was added in another place and protects genuine wholesalers dealing in substantial quantities provided that they trade from their ordinary business premises as defined in the Bill. The exemption was understandable and won support in another place.
Wholesale sales of intoxicating liquor to or by persons under the age of 18 on wholesale premises are covered by the provisions in Clause 17 of the Licensing Bill. It is an offence for a wholesaler thus defined to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of 18. Moreover, it is an offence for a wholesaler to allow a person under the age of 18 to make a sale of intoxicating liquor unless that sale has been specifically approved by the wholesaler or by a person over the age of 18 acting on his behalf.
I should like the House to note that in particular the Bill tackles the dreadful problem of under-age drinking. I do not believe that there is a noble Lord who has not discussed with anxious parents, social workers, teachers or other interested parties the problems of school children consuming large quantities of alcohol. I have carried out research—and quite clearly one reads the proceedings of this Bill in another place with interest—and have read some of the illustrations, which are not hypothetical, of the situation that were drawn to the attention of the Committee, and it is very distressing indeed. If this Bill even remotely helps to deal with some of those problems I believe it will be a very good thing indeed.

437
I ask the House to take on board what Mr. Dafydd Wigley said in Committee in another place. He quoted from the Western Mail of 9th October:
"Almost 4,000 11-year-old schoolboys in Wales have been drunk at least twice during their first year at secondary school. In some areas 12-year-old children regard themselves as regular drinkers and some teenagers frequently drink more than 25 pints of beer a week. Latest figures contained in a special investigation by the Press Association show that Wales is becoming the booziest area of the UK, with problems already far worse than England's".
Knowledge of the extent to which children can purchase liquor came to me as a bolt out of the blue, as it would all right-minded parents and citizens.
Perhaps I may ask the Committee—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to be pedantic but this is a Second Reading debate and therefore this is the House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise. I stand corrected and suitably chastened. Perhaps I may ask the House whether it will take note of the fact that some of those young people have been able to obtain liquor in a manner which, while it may not have been illegal, was certainly reprehensible. I am told that one company hires space at an easily identifiable venue—for instance, a cricket or football ground or a hotel on a Sunday morning— and extensively advertises a wine club to which membership is free. These meetings command considerable support. I am told that direct supply is another route whereby alcohol can be obtained by young people. Advertisements are placed in local newspapers giving the temporary telephone number and venue of the vendor's visiting representative. Inquiries lead to delivery and supply. Sale or return is an established trade technique and is now beginning to appear in conjunction with each of the examples I have given.
Representatives have established regular rounds of visits calling, for example, every Tuesday evening. Although purporting to deliver orders taken previously, the quantities on their vehicles usually fail to tally with advice notes. I am certain that the Minister and others who may speak are well aware of some of these avenues whereby sales are obtained.
However, your Lordships' House is indebted to the report of the Working Group on Young People and Alcohol which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. This was a report commissioned by the Home Office, by the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. It was a very good report indeed which laid before us a horrifying situation. Perhaps I may very quickly indicate to the House some of its findings in substance. It stated:
"—there is evidence of regular, often illegal, drinking of alcohol by adolescents;
—it is not possible to prove a causal link between the consumption of alcohol and crime in general;
—there is a strong association between intoxication and certain crimes of violence and disorder, and that there is by definition a link between intoxication and offences of drunkenness and drink-driving;
—that young people (particularly young men) are especially implicated in these types of crime, and are the heaviest drinkers, mainly drinking beer:
—that the law regulating the consumption of alcohol by those under 18 is complicated, anomalous, and widely flouted".
438
Many of us have watched with absolute horror what some young people under the age of 18 have been getting up to in Germany in the last few days. However, that was the latest incident of a series of incidents where alcohol can be seen to be the root of the problem.
We are absolutely horrified by the statistics. The report of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also told us that there is no evidence collated about the extent of drinking by young people. For example, it shows that under a heading:
"Have had a 'proper drink' (i.e. a substantial measure of an alcoholic drink)".
The number of 13 year-olds in England and Wales was 82 per cent., the number of 14 year-olds was 88 per cent., the number of 15 year-olds was 92 per cent., the number of 16 year-olds was 91 per cent. and the number of 17 year-olds was 92 per cent.
Of the same group who usually had an alcoholic drink at least once a week the number of 13 year-olds was 29 per cent. and the number of 14 year-olds was 34 per cent. The House is entitled to wonder where they drink and if they are drinking in unlicensed premises. Sadly most of them indicate that they drink at home. That is where most young people are drinking. I simply wish to emphasise the importance of the home in early drinking of alcohol and the extent to which home drinking is under adult supervision.
The purpose of this modest amendment to the law is to seek to close some of the loopholes whereby alcohol has been made more freely available than Members of your Lordships' House would wish. When I make inquiries examples I am given are that people come to a pop festival or carnival and make alcohol available off the back of a lorry. That is one method and there are many more. The reputable trader is as horrified as Members of your Lordships' House at the continuing damage and the danger that alcohol can cause especially to young people. The law has been flouted to some extent. The measure that I bring before the House has the full approval of the British Independent Grocers' Association, the British Retailers' Association, the Retail Consortium and many other reputable organisations.
Perhaps I may refer to a point that was raised more than once in another place as regards accessibility to alcohol illegally at one-day markets or markets in general. The overwhelming majority of markets in this country are organised by highly reputable local authorities and others are organised by private operators who are also highly reputable. Market traders are highly reputable, especially those who are members of the National Market Traders' Federation. They would be as horrified as anyone if any of their members were engaged in the kind of activity which has been drawn to our attention. They have as much to gain as anyone else by operating within the law and not offending good public order and taste.
I very much hope that the Minister will say some kind words about the speed at which the Bill may progress through this place.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
7.21 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this albeit modest Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has put before the House. Modest though it is, it is a most important Bill because it closes yet another loophole in the law as regards the definition of what is a wholesale sale and what is a retail sale of alcohol. One has to view this Bill against a sad background in this country. It is a sad commentary on British life that a section of British youth seems determined to use a large proportion of its disposable income in buying alcohol not simply for eventual consumption but for immediate consumption. More often than not, that leads to intoxication, with alarming results. Those results are very evident on a bank holiday, for example.
On a recent bank holiday I went to a quiet cathedral town not 50 miles from London. I was staying with friends and on two of the evenings over the bank holiday weekend I saw scenes in the centre of the town that were indescribable. I saw hordes of youths coming out of pubs, and presumably that is where they got their alcohol on this occasion. The town in question has a lot of pubs. Their behaviour was at best rowdy and inconvenient to any members of the public who happened to be passing. At worst, it was disgusting. It was a parade of vomiting, rudeness and surly, aggressive behaviour.
If one reads the report of the Association of Chief Police Officers which was released recently, one sees that this is the pattern over a great deal of the country at the moment, particularly in the south of England. I do not know whether this is a commentary on the dark side of our new prosperity, which has brought a great deal of affluence to young people, who are unfortunately using it in this way.
It is a sad commentary that we have to talk through Bills of this kind when we are shortly to go into the European Community. Many other countries in that Community conduct themselves in a much better way as regards alcohol. For example, one does not see in Italy, France or Spain young people drinking quickly—in this country it is mostly beer of high strength—with the sole intention of getting drunk quickly and then behaving in a manner which is becoming increasingly alarming to the public at large.
Against this worsening situation, it is a happy event to see a Bill which seeks to make it more difficult for people who are not responsible purveyors of alcohol to ply their trade in places where young people gather; namely, at football matches, carnivals, sporting events, and in places of this kind. Drink may be obtained from the back of a lorry or at a stall. Ostensibly, it is sold wholesale and it makes it far too easy for young people to obtain drink. When I say "young people", I refer to those who are below the age at which they may legally purchase alcohol. Many of the purveyors who work from these kinds of places are not too concerned whether they break the law.
I should like to see this Bill taken further. I am considering tabling an amendment to provide that there should be some area or distance from the point of a sale of this kind within which it is illegal to
440
consume alcohol having bought it wholesale. The amendment would try to make it more difficult for people to buy alcohol wholesale. Young people are quite at liberty to go behind a wall and put together their money and then send along one of their number to buy alcohol. It will be perfectly within the scope of this Bill, when it is enacted, for one of a group of young people to buy a case of beer and then to return behind a wall and consume it with his fellows who have shared in the cost.
To expect the police to watch out and catch people in the act of consumption of alcohol in this way is putting additional strain upon them. I know that the police are most concerned at the alarming increase in drinking by the youth of this country. The Home Office committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, criticised the attitude of the Advertising Standards Authority. I was personally dismayed at its attitude, which was also criticised by the committee for the lax way in which it interpreted the standards which it is supposed to police. I believe advertising is damaging when it is on the borderline of being legal and advertises drink as being attractive to young people, making them sexually attractive or more masculine, in the case of men.
This Bill will not change the attitude which brings about this problem but I hope it will go some way to countering its effects. We welcome the Bill and I believe that your Lordships will all welcome its simple proposition. With recent legislation and a new approach by the police and the public at large, I hope there will be a gradual growth in understanding of the dangers of increasing drinking by young people and of the effects of intoxication.
I do not believe there will be an immediate improvement as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said. Those of us who watch television saw scenes which showed what young people are capable of when they go abroad to support their teams at overseas football matches. This has really brought the attention of the public at large to a very grave and worsening problem. It behoves us in this House, and it behoves everybody in a position of responsibility, to do his utmost to see that this problem does not grow any worse. We therefore welcome this legislation wholeheartedly.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton for the lucid and, if I may say so, very sober way in which he introduced the Second Reading of this important little Bill. The Bill states in one short sentence at the very top of the first page what its object is. It is:
"An act to amend the definition of 'sale by retail' in section 201 of the Licensing Act 1964".
It may be necessary in just a few moments, which is all that I intend to take of the time of the House, to look at the whole question of drinking by those under the age of 18 years.
In case anybody thinks that the Bill is incomplete in the way it deals with that problem, which has been so eloquently discussed by previous speakers, the Licensing Bill as it was, now the Licensing Act, which

441
received Royal Assent on 19th May—very recently indeed—provides that youngsters under the age of 18 shall no longer be able to obtain legally drink from wholesalers, from off-licences and indeed from supermarkets.
But there was a gap. And this little Bill fills the gap. I hope your Lordships will forgive my terminology. I believe however it properly describes the people of whom I am thinking. The Bill stops the spivs from selling alcoholic drinks to young folk under the age of 18 off the back of lorries, and places like that, when there are funfairs or other similar activities going on. That is a very useful thing to have done. I believe this House owes a debt of gratitude to the honourable Member for Berkshire, East for having used his opportunity to introduce this Bill and take it through the Commons. Now, as my noble friend Lord Graham as said, it is a privilege for him to move its Second Reading in this House and for those of us on this side to support it.
7.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for taking up this Bill and for bringing it forward for the consideraton of your Lordships this evening. Although the Government's attitude is one of neutrality to the Bill, I hope that it will not be out of place for me to say that I think that it will prove another useful albeit minor weapon against alcohol misuse, and that it will complement the recent Licensing Act 1988.
The Bill seeks to amend the definition of those sales of alcohol which require the authority of a justices' licence and it will, I hope, simplify and clarify this technical part of the law. Quite sensibly in my view, the Bill will not require a justices' licence to be in force in order to permit the sale of alcohol to those whose business it is to sell or supply alcohol either to fellow traders or to members of the public.
The significant provision of the Bill is perhaps its reference to sales of alcohol in wholesale quantities to members of the public. Your Lordships may be aware that the sale of a case of wine or spirits can be made by anyone, anywhere, without the need for a justices' licence. Most transactions of this kind will take place perfectly respectably from establised premises such as wine warehouses, but they can also take place, as has been explained this evening and—I am hound to say that it came as a great surprise to me on discovering the purpose of the Bill—from the backs of lorries or at one-day fairs. Whatever the circumstances, provided that the minimum quantities are observed the provisions of the licensing law do not apply.
The effect of the Bill will be to allow the established wholesaler who operates from permanent premises to continue to trade with the public without a justices' licence, so long as the quantities which are involved are not less than one case of wine or spirits or two cases of beer or cider. But it will no longer be possible for itinerant operators to escape the net of the law, and it is in that respect that the Bill strengthens the controls available under the 1964 Licensing Act.
442
We have thought long and hard about the apparent anomaly in the licensing law whereby a person selling small quantities of alcohol is subejct to detailed controls whereas the wholesale dealer can operate more freely. Indeed, we considered the possibility of requiring all wholesale operators to hold justices' licences and thereby become subject to the panoply of the licensing regime.
We concluded that this could not be justified for most circumstances. Wholesale purchases from wine warehouses tend to be planned transactions and those likely to misuse alcohol are unlikely, on the whole, to buy their wares from established wholesalers. A detailed licensing system is therefore inappropriate for such outlets.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, drew particular attention to the problems of under-age drinking, as indeed did the noble Viscount. Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I think that we are all rightly concerned about the growing problem and evidence of under-age drinking, and for that reason we included specific provisions in the new Licensing Act. Those will make it an offence for the holder of an off-licence, a wholesaler or his staff to sell alcohol from his premises to a person who is under the age of 18 and to fail to supervise effectively any sales by younger members of his staff. In addition, it becomes an offence for a young person to buy or attempt to buy alcohol in wholesale quantities on wholesale premises. The new Act will therefore bring established wholesalers into line with off-licensed outlets so far as under-age sales are concerned.
The new provisions will not, though, apply to those wholesalers who operate from temporary stalls or from vehicles. The Bill before us will close that loophole. If it proceeds to the statute book, the Bill will make it an offence for those who sell to the public—in whatever quantities—to do so without a licence if they sell from anywhere but permanent premises. I believe that this measure, modest as it is in scope, will serve a useful purpose both in simplifying the present law and in removing a potential opportunity for alcohol misuse.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked whether I would say something about the speed with which the Bill could pass through your Lordships' House. That would not be for me to do; it would be up to your Lordships. I rather fancy however that if it proceeds as quickly as it has this evening it will not have a very great deal of trouble. I have tried to contribute in that respect by making a speech which is rather shorter than I might otherwise have intended, though substantially longer than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister has made a majestic speech covering one of the major aspects with which the Bill deals. I refer to the wine warehouse which now has a legality. The other people who are selling in wholesale quantities from the kind of places that we have talked about will be caught by the law. I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for filling in a number of gaps which I might fairly have spelled out.

443
Although the Minister is perfectly right in saying that it is a Private Member's Bill, I have deduced from the words used by the noble Earl's ministerial colleague in another place and from correspondence I have seen between others and the Minister that there is goodwill all round.
At the end of the day we still have the problem of enforcement. And we still have the problem of attitudes. Very little that the law can do will instil into parents what you and I would call parental responsibility. There is very little that the Minister and his colleagues can do that will encourage those who are determined to break the law to desist from doing so.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon properly drew attention to the fact that the Licensing Bill had a tiny loophole which this Bill seeks to fill. I understand that even that loophole might have been filled by the Licensing Bill but that there were problems. This Private Member's Bill will, I hope, complete in 1988 one small additional weapon that society and the law will have provided to try to obviate the tragedies that come from too early drinking and too heavy drinking. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 p.m. to 8.5 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 15.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZD:
Page 141, line 38, at end insert—
("Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (c.30)
10A. In section 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (valuation by formula of certain lands and heritages) for subsection (I) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) In the case of such lands and heritages as may be prescribed or of any class or description of such lands and heritages as may be prescribed, the Secretary of State may by order provide that their rateable values or the aggregate amount of their rateable values shall be—

(a) such as is prescribed; or

(b) such as is determined in accordance with prescribed rules.".").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 194ZD, which is grouped with Amendment No. 194ZCA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZE:
Page 141, line 38, at end insert—
("10B.— (1) In section 9 of that Act (payment of rates pending valuation appeal) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) Notwithstanding that an appeal under the Valuation Acts is pending with respect to any lands and heritages the rates levied on those lands and heritages shall be payable in accordance with section 8 of this Act.".
(2) The amendment made by sub-pararaph (1) above shall not have effect as regards any lands and heritages with respect to which an appeal under the Valuation Acts is pending at the date of commencement of that sub-paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: I shall explain Amendments Nos. 194ZE and 194ZF together because they are part and parcel of the same measure.
Amendment No. 194ZE requires a ratepayer to pay his rates bill in full pending the outcome of his appeal, which is the position in England and Wales. If the appeal is successful, Amendment No. 194ZF requires the rating authority to repay not only the amount overpaid but also, where that amount is in excess of a prescribed limit, interest on that amount at a rate set by the Secretary of State.
I appreciate that some Members may be concerned at the proposal that ratepayers be required to pay their rates bills in full pending appeal rather than nine-tenths of the bill as at present. I suggest, however, that the minor benefits to the ratepayer of retaining 10 per cent. of his rates bill are more than offset by the administrative difficulties that this causes for the rating authorities. Currently, whether an appeal is successful or not, the amount paid requires to be adjusted, and that can result in considerable work for the rating authorities. Against this the advantages for the ratepayer are not great, particularly when it is recalled that he requires to make provision to meet the full cost of his rates bill should his appeal be unsuccessful.
I accept that where an appeal is successful the ratepayer will in effect have made a loan to the rating authority of the amount by which his rates bill is reduced on appeal. It is only proper where this is a significant amount that the authority should pay interest to the ratepayer for the use of his money during the period of the appeal. It is this requirement to pay interest not only in the case of a successful appeal but also where an error has been made in the rates bill in the authority's favour that Amendment No. 194ZF seeks to introduce.
The amendments together are to the benefit of ratepayer and rating authority alike. They are also to the benefit of all ratepayers in that they remove any encouragement to lodge appeals where no real grounds exist. Such appeals slow down the whole process to the detriment of those with genuine grievances. I ask the Committee to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is interesting to hear the Minister speak about convenience to the rating authorities. That would have been met with much greater appreciation if the rating authorities had been consulted about the amendment. It appears to have come from St. Andrew's House after no consultation with any rate-receiving authority. The Minister will doubtless be able to tell us why it is of such great interest to the rating authorities, which have never asked for it. However, so be it.
Why is the charge to be made? If somebody appeals against his rates assessment he does not have to pay

445
the full amount of the rates. The time taken for an appeal is alarmingly long. We are still dealing with appeals from the 1985 valuation. I understand that the period for appeals to be disposed of will have to be extended yet again. If that is so, and if somebody is appealing because he has not been de-rated, the amount of money at stake may be considerable. This appears to be a backdoor way in which, for administrative convenience of government—in the sense of central government and local government—the ratepayer is suddenly to be asked to pay the full amount instead of a restricted amount pending the appeal. For the sake of freedom of the individual, something to which I thought the Government occasionally paid some lip service—I am receiving what no doubt is a critical glance from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I thought that the Government occasionally considered the interests of ratepayers. Why is it in the interests of ratepayers that they should have to pay the full amount instead of only a proportion of the amount pending the appeal?
A considerable proportion of appeals are successful. If we are looking for harmonisation between England and Scotland, it may be that the individual ratepayer would prefer the Scottish position to the English position. Therefore I am dubious whether this provision is really necessary, whether it is demanded by the industrial and commercial ratepayers in Scotland and whether there is anything behind it other than sheer administrative convenience.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is all very well to say that it is just administrative convenience, but the noble Lord will be well aware that administrative convenience can also save money. The saving of money by a local authority in turn must save money for the ratepayer himself. The expenditure goes down and therefore there is a saving to be made.
I understand the noble Lord's perfecty legitimately held view that one way forward is to pay nine-tenths of the bill and wait for the appeal to go through. The Government feel on this occasion that the provisions in the Bill for dealing with appeals are a better way forward than the present position in Scotland. The noble Lord and his party are entitled to their view, hut nothing he said convinces me that the change is for the worse.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am obliged to the Minister. It would be much easier to know whether this proposal was for the worse or the better. Have the Government consulted any of the rate collecting authorities in Scotland? It is my understanding that there was no consultation whatever and that this provision has been brought in because it suits England and Wales.
It may be that in England and Wales appeals can be disposed of much more quickly. It would be alarming to think of anything much slower than the way in which we in Scotland manage to dispose of valuation appeals. It is really appalling. However, before bringing forward the amendment, would it not have been better to at least consult the people who are involved in rating appeals?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We could go on and talk about consultation but we shall come to that later this evening. I am looking forward to discussing consultation in regard to other matters. Bearing in mind that domestic rates will cease and therefore the case load will become smaller, there are grounds to hope that delays will be reduced considerably. I speak as someone who was involved in business in Scotland. I am perfectly certain that industry will welcome this procedure and therefore I cannot agree with the views expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am pleased to hear that this will be welcomed by industry in Scotland and I am surprised to hear that industry, which is not unaccustomed to appealing against valuations, is happy to pay 100 per cent. on the spot instead of nine-tenths. That seems strange, but no doubt the Minister has consulted the CBI, the Council for Development in Industry, or both, and is able to tell us the results of those consultations; or has this been thought up without consultation by St. Andrew's House? The noble Lord has said what industry will think. Perhaps he will be able to tell us whether there has been any consultation about this amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: In answer to the noble Lord, the consultations which have taken place within government have brought us to the conclusion that this is the best way forward on a United Kingdom basis. From his many contributions to these valuable debates I should have thought that the noble Lord believed in harmonisation north and south of the Border. I should have thought that it would be useful for the noble Lord to realise that in some areas it is better to try to harmonise on these matters, especially when many companies north and south of the Border have branches on either side of it. It is very much easier to have a system which is the same right across the United Kingdom.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am glad that we have established, first, that there was no consultation and that therefore this is being imposed by the Government without consultation with industry or business; and, secondly, that harmonisation is not to be on the basis of the way rating is approached, which is what we were discussing earlier, but that we in Scotland are to do whatever central government or St. Andrew's House decide is reasonable. That is what we on this side of the Committee sometimes cynically thought. It is nice to get confirmation from the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZE:
Page 141, line 38, at end insert—
10C. After section 9 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Interest on rates paid in error.
9A.—(1) Where any amount, in excess of such limit as may be prescribed, has been paid in error to a rating authority in respect of rates and the rating authority in respect of rates and the rating authority repays the amount the rating authority shall also pay to the person to whom the repayment is made interest on the

447
amount at such rate as may be determined in accordance with subsection (3) below.
(2) No payment of interest under subsection (1) above shall be made after the end of the sixth year after that in respect of which the amount was paid in error unless application for repayment was made before that time.
(3) The rate of interest referred to in subsection (1) shall be such rate—

(a) as the Secretary of State may prescribe; or

(b) as is to be determined in such manner as he may prescribe,

and regulations made under this subsection may not make provision for a rate of interest in respect of any period before the regulations come into force.
(4) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) above shall apply to the repayment of the amount of an overpayment which a rating authority is required to repay under section 9(2) of this Act as they apply to the repayment of an amount referred to in the said subsection (1).
(5) This section shall not require the payment of interest in respect of any period before the commencement of paragraph 10C of Schedule 15 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and subsection (4) above shall not have effect in relation to any repayment in consequence of an appeal which was lodged before such commencement.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZG:
Page 141, line 38, at end insert—
("Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65.).
In subsection (7) of section 2 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (manner in which local authorities are required to publish information) in paragraph (a) the words "or the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973" shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) Its dispatch with, or inclusion in—

(i) a demand for payment of rates issued under section 237(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947; or

(ii) a demand notice for payment of a community charge issued under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.".").

The noble Lord said: If it will be convenient for the Committee, I shall group Amendment No. 194ZG with Amendments Nos. 194ZY, 194ZZ, 194ZZA, 194ZZB, 194ZZC, 194ZZD, 194ZZE, 194ZZF, 206E and 194ZZZ, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
The government amendments in this group are a miscellaneous set of amendments dealing with a number of issues relating to community charge payment and collection. They fall into five groups, which I shall deal with in turn. Amendment No. 194ZG will allow the Secretary of State to issue to local authorities a code of practice setting out the information to be sent to community charge payers along with their demand notices. At present additional information on local authority expenditure is provided on a separate statement issued at the time of the demand notices for rates. This procedure was established in 1982, when the Secretary of State issue a code of practice under the provision of Part II of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. We intend to issue an updated code of practice which will cover the information to be issued with community charge demand notices—for instance, the amount that a local authority is proposing to spend on each of the services it provides. The code of practice will of course be the subject of consultation with local authorities.
The amendment puts Scotland on a similar basis to England and Wales, where my right honourable friend intends to use his order-making powers under Clause 141of the Bill to set out a code of practice. The amendment simply puts it beyond doubt that a similar course may be followed in Scotland.
The second main topic dealt with by this group of amendments is that of discounts and incentives, provided for by Amendment No. 194ZZ. The amendment allows local authorities to offer discounts or other incentives to encourage payment arrangements which will be of financial benefit to local authorities. I should emphasise that we are bringing forward the amendment in response to suggestions from local authority interests themselves. Provision for discounts for early payment of the community charge in England and Wales is already included in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
The kind of arrangements we have in mind are for discounts to be made available if a person agrees to pay the full personal community charge as a single lump sum payment early in the financial year. The extent of the discount which may be made available is restricted by my right honourable friend's power to prescribe a limit, and we do not envisage that the discount should be more than a few percentage points of the payment.
On the question of incentives, we envisage that these might take the form of a reduced charge for local authority services such as recreational facilities or entry into a prize competition. Again, this is made available with the safeguard that the cost of the inducement taken with the cost of any reduction in liability offered should not exceed the savings which accrue to local authorities under the agreements reached.
I should stress that the main method of payment for the community charges will remain as 12 monthly instalments. However, the amendment gives local authorities a desirable degree of flexibility to maximise their cash flow in appropriate cases.
The third point covered by the amendments is the repeal of sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. That is dealt with by Amendments Nos. 194ZZD and 206E. The repeal removes the requirement for a levying authority to apply for a court decree, rather than a summary warrant, in cases where it is basing recovery action on joint and several liability for the personal community charge. That provision was included because joint and several liability is not a registration matter and cannot therefore form the subject of an appeal to the sheriff at the point of registration.
It was therefore provided that, where recovery action was based on joint and several liability, it should be necessary for the levying authority to obtain a decree so that the court could have a full opportunity to consider the substantive issue of whether joint and several liability in fact applies. The amendment we have made to Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 26 of Schedule 15 to the Bill provides for the substantive issue on joint and several liability to be considered by the levying authority, and by the sheriff on appeal, when there is an appeal against a demand notice

449
based on joint and several liability. There is therefore no need to restrict the subsequent recovery action to the obtaining of a court decree. As opportunity will have been available for the substantive issue to be considered previously in all cases, there is no reason why recovery should not be pursued by way of summary warrant.
The final substantive amendment in the group is Amendment No. 194ZZE, which remedies an omission in the 1987 Act.
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Bill enables the Secretary of State to make regulations providing that in carrying out its functions under the Bill charging authorities in England and Wales may make use of information obtained under other Acts, unless that information falls within a prescribed description of information which cannot be used. The amendment makes similar provision for Scotland. A power to use such information would, for example, enable a levying authority to check from its other records whether a person who has defaulted on payment of his community charge is married and thus to decide whether it should invoke the joint and several liability provisions of the 1987 Act in order to effect recovery of the amount outstanding.
Finally, I turn to the other amendments in this group; namely, Amendments Nos. 194ZY, 194ZZA, 194ZZB, 194ZZC and 194ZZF. They are either purely drafting amendments or amendments to ensure that the arrangements for levying and collecting the community water charges are on all fours with the corresponding arrangements for levying and collecting the community charges themselves. There is no policy content in the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It must be said that this is a fairly wide-ranging group of amendments; and one sometimes wonders how such groups come into being. However, I shall deal with them as best I can, without trying to send Members of the Committee to sleep, as Amendment No. 194ZZZ, tabled in my name, is apparently designed to do.
The first point I should like to make is that at present there is a voluntary code on what is sent out with the rates notice. Indeed, this has been a matter of discussion and agreement between the various local authorities and the Government at certain times. We are now told —and it is nice to be told with no statutory backing—that there will be consultation. Apparently the Secretary of State will lay down regulations as to what is to happen in regard to the notices.
As I have said, it is nice to know that there will be such consultation, but there is nothing in the Bill which specifies that there will be consultation. Therefore we are far from certain whether consultation means what the dictionary says it means or whether it means that the Government are saying, "This is what we intend to do. We will give you a week to agree to it but, if you do not agree, we will pass the regulations". We are not at all satisfied with the situation although it is perhaps a minor point.
The Minister may be quite happy to know that I have no comments or objections to make on
450
Amendment No. 194ZY. However, Amendment No. 194ZZ is a different matter altogether. Indeed, I have an amendment to it, which the Deputy Chairman of Committees will have to deal with when it is called. Paragraph 4B(1) of Amendment No. 194ZZ provides that local authorities may,
"offer inducements of a financial or other nature (including inducements in the forms of chances in a local lottery within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976)".
As I understand it, what happened was that when the Government put down the amendment the local authorities, through CoSLA—Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—wrote and asked what it meant. I think that the provision appeared first and then the amendment came out. The idea that most local authorities in Scotland are asking for a local lottery to induce people to pay their community charge early seems slightly bizarre. For example, I doubt whether this request came from the Western Islands Council. Indeed, I should have thought that this is completely outwith the general Scottish approach. Therefore that is the purpose of Amendment No. 194ZZZ, which is tabled in my name. I must say that I am very proud to have been able to achieve an amendment which has so many letters after it.
The purpose of the amendment is to make the inducement a purely financial one. Of course I am happy with that proposal. If there is to be some power to give a discount to a payer of the charges who pays the full charge at once, that is fine. To my recollection, that situation occurred before 1973 or 1974 when many local authorities had a provision that if one paid one's total rates bill by a certain date then one received a certain discount. That would seem to be perfectly reasonable. However, the idea of taking chances in a local lottery seems to be something entirely un-Scottish. It may go with the sort of English behaviour that we have noticed in Dusseldorf, but we do not want that brought into Scotland. I am sorry if my noble friend beside me is getting upset. I do not think that he was in Dusseldorf. It is in that frame of mind that I shall move my amendment. There is a strong case for offering a discount but not for offering free laundry facilities, free rides in the local circus or chances in the local lottery.
The next stage is Amendment No. 194ZZD. I have great difficulty with that amendment. Its purpose appears to be that a married couple will receive a notice when the demand notice is sent out which, in my understanding, will be in the first half of April each year. They will then have a short period within which to appeal. The provision does not cover married couples only. It covers the circumstances referred to in Aberdeen as a "bidey-in". There seems to be a strange idea, about which I have often complained, that with this legislation the Government do not appear to live in the real world. This is a wonderful example of that attitude. In effect what is said here that a man and a woman living together at the beginning of April will accept joint and several liability. That means that they will not separate until some time about the end of March the following year.

451
My recollection of practice in the divorce courts is that the separation of married people was not restricted to the first half of April in any one year. They separated at various times during the year. My recollection of the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act is that one is liable for one's spouse only during the period when one is living with him or her. If one has a restricted time after the notice demanding joint and several payment is served in April, what will happen if, at the end of May, the couple separates? What will happen if in June one or both decide to live with different people? It seems to me, with all respect to the Government, that they have not thought the matter out at all.
The position, as I understood it before, was that in April each person in the couple received a demand notice; and, although it was described as a joint and several liability, it was in fact a cautionary liability because the person who did not pay (the other party)—it is difficult, and I should talk about the married couple only—the spouse, incurred a liability once the other spouse did not pay. The Government are changing that. The Government are saying that if John and Janet—to use simple language that we have all learnt in school from the age of five—are living together in April, they have a joint and several liability. If they are not living together, one of them can then appeal to the sheriff. If the time for appeal expires, they are presumed not to have separated until the following year's demand notice goes out. With all respect to the Minister, that is daft, because it is totally unreal. People separate at times of the year other than April. There is nothing in the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act to say that it is only then that people may cease to live together. We should go back to the old system, which may be rather awkward but which at least has some basis in reality. This provision is completely unreal.
I turn to Amendment No. 194ZZE. It relates to the exchange of information, which the Government say is the same as in the English legislation. However, I wonder whether the Government have consulted the Data Protection Act and want to drive a coach and horses through it. If so, why? They have not explained that provision. Perhaps the Minister can explain all those points in this rather heterogenous group and then we may see where we go from there.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that although his instinct may be that it is extremely un-Scottish to have anything to do with a lottery, Tayside Regional Council mooted the idea of a lottery to raise money for sports and leisure facilities. A number of councillors objected strongly to that idea. They said they could not possibly vote for it. They went home for the weekend. When they came back the following week they had to confess that they could not find anyone who objected to such a proposal. Tayside Regional Council ran a successful lottery. Everyone rather enjoyed and accepted it. It is not necessarily an un-Scottish notion, although of course the lottery was not applied to paying for the community charge. It was to raise money for local government facilities. One should
452
not jump too quickly to conclusions about what is Scottish and what is not. I was a little concerned about the noble Lord's reference to English football hooligans. I do not think that we can be too sure that that is always a purely English manifestation.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope that I did not give the impression that only the English went in for certain forms of football hooliganism. No one who is a Scot would ever have suggested that, nor would anyone who reads the newspapers. All I was trying to suggest was that to ask people who are provident and want to pay their debts early to take part in a lottery does not necessarily fit all elements of all Scots. I think the provision needs to be thought out. In the past week or two since it was produced, the amendment has brought forward a certain amount of criticism.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Just to follow what the noble Lord said, I do not believe that he had realised that a lottery had been run by at least one local authority in Scotland. I do not know whether it has been done by others. It was accepted by people. The council did not push it, but people backed it and enjoyed it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is one thing to give the prospect of a lottery to anyone who cares to take part by buying a ticket in the lottery; it is another thing to say to anyone who wants to pay their whole debt to the local authority that by doing so they take part in a lottery. I can think of a few people who have a strongly rooted objection, which I fully accept even if I do not always agree with it, to taking part in any form of gambling. We should recognise that feeling. I should have thought that it would be better that the financial inducement should be restricted to a financial discount. That is the purpose of my amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: To give the Bill its due, it provides only that a council "may" run a lottery. It does not have to.
Earl Russell: Just for once I must say that I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and not with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I accept that those objections exist, but, if I have understood the proposal aright, it is not being proposed that anyone should be forced to take part in a lottery. I must admit that I also take some exception to the comparison of lotteries with football hooliganism. It seems to me that one of them does no harm to anyone except possibly to the participant and probably not to him either. The other does a good deal of harm to other people. On the other hand, if the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, had concentrated on the question whether a lottery will raise enough money to make a statistically significant contribution to paying off the community charge, he might perhaps have been on rather stronger ground.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry, if I could, I would willingly withdraw anything I said about the football hooligans whom the noble Earl is so anxious

453
to defend. The point, as I understand it, is different. If I pay my rate, my community charge, in a lump sum early, and if I happen to be in a local authority which has decided on a lottery, I gather I do not get a financial discount, I do not get anything. If the local authority so decide, then I get a chance in a lottery. I may have a rooted objection to taking part in any lottery. Why should the local authority make that decision for me?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As we said at the beginning of this discussion, this grouping of amendments covers a very wide spectrum. I shall do my best to deal with the three points which I think the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, brought to our notice.
Perhaps I may deal first with the point about the code of practice. At present Section 3 of the 1980 Act provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring local authorities to adhere to any code of practice in respect of rates issued under Section 2. It has not proved necessary so far to invoke this provision but the option is available, should it prove necessary to use it. We envisage that voluntary arrangements will similarly be effective under the community charge system.
Perhaps I may move now to deal with the noble Lord's famous amendment, which was meant to put everyone to sleep but which in fact has not put me to sleep. I understand the reference to local lotteries, about which there has been so much comment in recent days. As we see, it comes from the amendment which the noble Lord has put down and which deals with the provision by local authorities of discounts and incentives to encourage people to enter into payment arrangements for the community charge which are of financial benefit to the local authority.
The most obvious example is a lump sum payment at the start of the year, which both saves the local authority the administrative costs of handling 12 monthly payments and gives it the cash flow advantage of having money in hand. The provision of a discount or other incentive to encourage such payments seems entirely reasonable, and I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, agrees with that part.
The amendment however goes wider than the straightforward provision of discounts because in the course of consultations with local authorities in Scotland it was suggested that it should. One proposition was that certain benefits might be offered to those who entered into more economic arrangements such as direct debit. For example, they might enjoy reduced charges for local authority facilities such as swimming pools.
It was also suggested that they might have prize draws, as the noble Lord mentioned. Local authorities of course have established powers to run local lotteries. They were given these in 1975 in the Lotteries Act 1975 and the provisions were subsequently incorporated in the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 in the subsection referred to in the amendment, which was brought forward by the party of the noble Lord opposite.
I understand that these measures were not the subject of party political discussions and were
454
considered by Parliament entirely on their merits and in a non-partisan spirit. It is arguable that levying authorities for the community charge would already have power to offer inducements in the form of chances in a local lottery because the 1976 Act empowers local authorities to promote a local lottery for any purpose for which they have power to incur expenditure under any enactment.
However, it was thought that in view of the fact that specific provision was being made empowering a levying authority to offer inducements, it should be made clear that these inducements would take the form of chances in a local lottery. The amendment therefore merely clarifies the position and that is why the reference to local lotteries which it contains is in the form of a parenthetical aside—that is, in brackets. Members of the Committee will have noticed press reports in which CoSLA confirms that its discussions with the Scottish Office suggested that clarification of the existing powers about inducements was needed. That is precisely what we have provided.
Perhaps I may make two general points. First, provisions for discounts or any other form of incentives are entirely discretionary. There is no question of the Government forcing or requiring local authorities to operate any such schemes as seems to have been inferred in some of the press comment at the weekend. Secondly, any arrangements which local authorities make must be self-financing. There is absolutely no justification for the assumption that discounts or any other forms of incentives will be given to those who can afford to pay early, at the expense of other community charge payers.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way, there is a question I wish to ask.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps I may finish. If the noble Lord does not mind, I should just like to complete this section because it is quite important. Since the amendment was tabled it has attracted a lot of comment, both in this House and more particularly outside. The points which the noble Lord makes are very relevant. I think I interpret the feelings of those to whom I have spoken. On balance it would be preferable for prize draws or lotteries perhaps not to be available within the range of actions which local authorities may take to encourage people to enter into forms of payment arrangements. This is not a matter on which the Government feel strongly. They acted on the advice of those who were in the local authority area. We would not have included the point had it not been mentioned to us.
As a matter of legal technicality however, I cannot simply accept the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, puts forward. By removing the parenthetical reference we should merely be returning to the position in which clarification was called for in the first case where, under the powers of the Lotteries and Amusement Acts 1976, local authorities might well have power to offer prize draws as an incentive in this case. However, in the

455
light of the views which have been expressed, I undertake to consider very carefully whether the reference to local lotteries needs to remain. I shall raise the matter again on Report and bring forward an amendment if I judge that to be necessary.
Finally, the point was made about joint and several liability. I think that was on Amendment No. 194ZZD. Notices based on joint and several liability will only be issued after there has been a failure to pay one or both of the community charges. There is then a full right of appeal to the sheriff. There is absolutely no suggestion that couples would automatically receive joint and several notices at the beginning of each year.
I hope that the remarks I have made have clarified the Government's views on the various points raised.
Lord Morton of Shuna: On the question of lotteries, I should have thought that the way out would perhaps be to make sure that, if a lottery is to be permissible, it should be provided for those who have a rooted objection, if I may put it that way, that they are bound to receive a straight financial incentive rather than a chance in a lottery. I think that would be one way out of it.
As regards the married people, my understanding is, I am afraid, different. The demand notice that is referred to in Amendment No. 194ZZD is, I understand, the demand notice that we are talking about in Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. It is the demand notice for the payment of the community charge. That is the only demand notice we are talking about at this stage and it is the demand notice that each of us who resides in Scotland will receive sometime in April next year, 1989. It is that demand notice against which apparently under Amendment No. 194ZZD the couple if—I may refer to them as such—have the right to appeal. How they can say that they will enjoy life together, whether they are married or believe themselves to be married, I do not understand.
If we are talking about a different demand notice, that is not clear from the amendment, and it is not clear to me in such reading as I have been able to do of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act. There appears to be only one demand notice. That is the demand notice for the community charge. Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding this position, but if "demand notice" is used with two different meanings in the one Act, let us find out about that now and call it by different names when it means different things. There is no doubt that the demand notice which the Minister is talking about is different from the demand notice that I understand from reading Schedule 2 of the 1987 Act.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister responds, there was one phrase that he used which I do not have exactly right and which puzzled me very much. He said that there was no question of offering financial inducements to those who were very well able to pay on time. I must have misunderstood the Minister. I do not understand how one can discriminate between those who are making an effort to pay on time and need the inducements and those who are very well able to pay on time.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not think that I said that. However, I shall look very carefully at what is printed in Hansard. Of course the inducements are available to those who can afford to pay on time. That is what helps a local authority in its cash flow position.
As regards the point made about joint and several liability, page 147 of the Bill states in Schedule 15(26)(3):
"(a) the levying authority shall not issue a demand notice before the date prescribed under paragraph 2(1) above",
and so on. That is the joint and several demand notice. It is not issued in April. If the noble Lord wishes to study Schedule 15(26)(2A) he may like to enlighten me as to whether or not he has a point on this.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I think that I have. It is very difficult to wander from a schedule to one Act to a schedule to another Bill, but, on page 147 of the Bill that we are discussing, paragraph 26 refers to:
"Schedule 2 to that Act".
I think that that refers to Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. Schedule 15 (26) (2) to the Bill refers to:
"paragraph 2(1) (demand notices)".
The demand notice in Schedule 2 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act is the demand notice that we receive, or will receive, in April of next year which will tell us that the community charge is x pounds and that we have to pay it. If my reading of this is right—of course I may be totally wrong, but I think I read things more or less as a normal person would—that is the demand notice meant. It is not a later demand notice that is made when someone has failed to pay. I shall certainly study what the Minister has said, but I think that he is using "demand notice" in two different ways—using the meaning that it has under the Bill and the other meaning that it has under the Act. If that is really what he intends, it will cause desperate confusion.
The Lord Chancellor: I venture to intervene because I think that the noble Lord. Lord Morton of Shuna, may not be taking account of the fact that paragraph 26 of Schedule 15 provides for a demand note in a situation other than the ordinary situation which is provided for in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1987. In effect it says that—to take the paradigm case—where there is joint and several liability and one of the persons has not paid, there will be a possibility of a demand in respect of that person's liability against the person who is jointly and severally liable with that person. That is the demand that can occur after the failure of payment by the first person who is in question.
It is not a matter of a demand note being used in different senses. It is that there is more than one situation described in which a demand note may be issued. This is dealing with a particular type of situation—namely, where one of the spouses has defaulted and has not paid within the due time. In that situation a demand note can be issued, not in April but at the time of the failure. Then there is a period of appeal that follows on that. That is what I think the provision means, but obviously there is room for me to be corrected on the point.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have no doubt that that is what it was intended to mean, but I do not know whether that is what it does mean. The noble and learned Lord referred to Schedule 15(26)(2) to the Bill. That states:
"In paragraph 2(1) (demand notices) at the beginning there shall be inserted—
'Subject to paragraph 2A below'".
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act states:
every levying authority shall, in respect of the financial year 1989–1990 and of each subsequent financial year, issue, before such date in relation to each of those years as may be prescribed, to every person liable to pay … a notice in respect of that liability (in this Act referred to as a 'demand notice').
That is the notice that we shall all receive in April of next year. If it is intended that a demand notice is also to mean a different thing, which is what the noble and learned Lord appeared to say—that, for example, come July the spouse of the delinquent who has failed to pay the three months' instalment will suddenly receive a notice saying that Jenny Smith has not paid and the authorities think the people concerned have been living together—it is confusing to refer to that in the same schedule as a demand notice.
The Lord Chancellor: This could go on, subject to patience, almost indefinitely. The noble Lord will notice that in Schedule 15(26)(2), amending Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act, it states:
"Subject to paragraph 2A below".
That paragraph—2A—inserts a further situation in which a demand note to pay a community charge may be issued. That is where:
"a person's liability to pay a community charge arises only by virtue of section 8(7) of this Act (joint and several liability)".
Therefore it is saying that in addition to demand notes that are issued in respect of the primary liability to pay the community charge, they may also be issued in respect of the secondary liability to pay the community charge. The second type of demand note shall be issued only after such time as it appears to the local authority that it will be unable to recover payment of the community charge from the other person who is liable to pay. That is the way I understand it. However, as I say, I am subject to correction and perhaps we should look at the matter again. I intervened only because I thought I understood the matter.
9 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord has an advantage in the general quickness of his understanding compared with mine. However, the amendment appears to use "a demand notice" twice in the same schedule meaning different types of notice. That seems to me to be confusing. With respect, and from such knowledge of the law as I retain after being down here for far too long, we are not talking about joint and several liability. We are talking about cautionary liability. We are only bringing in the liability after the debtor has failed to pay. It does not appear to me that that assists at all. However, if the noble and learned Lord, assisted by the Minister, will look at the matter carefully and sort out Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act and
458
Schedule 15 to the Bill, I with interest to see what happens.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZH:
Page 142, line 35, leave out ("other").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to, as were Amendments Nos. 194ZJ and 194ZK, in our discussions on Amendment No. 193ZCA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZJ:
Page 142, line 35, after ("rating") insert ("or valuation for rating").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZK:
Page 142, line 36, leave out from ("be") to end of line 37 and insert ("such as is prescribed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZL:
Page 143, line 1, leave out ("or by virtue of section 30(2) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 194ZL and 194ZM when we debated Amendment No. 184D on Tuesday. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved amendment No. 194ZM:
Page 143, line 6, after ("above") insert ("and subsection (8) below").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZM:
Page 143, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this subsection—

(a) require such educational establishments as may be prescribed to supply, in such manner and at such time as may be prescribed, to every person undertaking or about to undertake a full time course of education provided by the establishment a certificate containing such particulars as may be prescribed;

(b) require such educational establishments as may be prescribed to supply to the registration officer within such period (being not less than 21 days) as may be prescribed such information as the registration officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the exercise of his functions under this Act, being information which is in the possession or control of the establishment."

( ) In subsection (6) after the word "of" where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words ""educational establishment"".").
The noble Lord said: In common with several of the other government amendments to Schedule 15, this amendment is essentially concerned with the compilation and maintenance of the community charges register. Student status for community

459
charge purposes confers on the student a reduced liability for the personal community charge. It is important that registration officers are able to satisfy themselves that those who are listed as students on canvass forms do indeed fall within the prescribed definition. We consulted interested bodies in February about the provisions which might be needed in this area. In the light of that consultation, we have brought forward this amendment which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring educational establishments to issue students with certificates confirming their student status.
The amendment also empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring educational establishments to provide registration officers with the names of people undertaking full-time courses of education at the establishment, together with such other information as is relevant to the registration of that person for personal community charge liability only. We shall of course consult interested bodies further before making the necessary regulations soon after the passage of the Bill. The amendment will make provision for Scotland similar to that which is already made for England and Wales in Clause 127 and paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Government are very strange at times—perhaps "at times" is the wrong expression. We discussed the English provision contained in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill on 7th June at col. 1295 of the Official Report as regards Amendment No. 83A. It was explained very carefully on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh—he will remember it well—that all that is required is that the education authority shall give to the registration officer the names and addresses of students at the start of the academic year. It was agreed on all sides, and notably by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that it was unrealistic to ask for anything else.
It is clear that paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 does not contain any mention of a certificate. Therefore, to say that that follows the English provision seems to me to be incorrect. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 on page 86 says:
"Regulations … may include a provision that a certification officer"—
who is someone in an educational establishment—
"shall supply to a registration officer for a charging authority such information as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)".
Sub-paragraph 2 says:
"The information is—

(a) the name of each person who (on the day the request is made) is undertaking a full-time course of education and has his sole or main residence in the area of the charging authority, and

(b) the address of the sole or main residence of each such person".

The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, made it quite clear that the university (to use that shorthand for the various bodies which may be involved) was not under any obligation to certify that the addresses were correct. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave us a florid recollection of the speed at which students
460
move from one address to another. I shall not attempt to repeat that.
However, the provision contains nothing about certificates. If certificates are to be issued—that has an unfortunately correlation with carrying an identity card around saying that one is a full-time student—why should they be necessary in Scotland for Scottish students and not in England and Wales? Where have those certificates come from? Where are they provided for in England? What value is such a certificate to have? If on 6th October in any given year the University of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or St. Andrews issues a certificate which may be shown to various officers saying that John Smith or Hugh Morton is a student and he then ceases to be a full-time student because he does not attend classes or takes up another obligation, who is going to withdraw the certificate? The certificate based on that information seems to be totally valueless and possibly confusing. As far as I can see it is not something that will apply in England. If we are all to carry identity cards, so be it, but let us have it in general legislation and not introduced for a certain sub-class in Scotland.
On the face of the Bill and this amendment certification is complete nonsense. Therefore I wonder whether the Minister can clarify this point.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps it escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, but if he turns to page 16 of the Bill he will see under Clause 27(2)(b) that:
"a certification officer shall at a prescribed time supply to a person who is pursuing or who is about to pursue a course at the establishment, and who is of a prescribed description, a certificate in a prescribed form and containing prescribed particulars".
I stand by what I said.
It is nonsense to suggest that the issue to students of certificates confirming their student status is akin to the introduction of a system of identity cards. I hope that we can see this proposal in its proper context. Student status will entitle the student to a very considerable reduction on what his community charge liability would otherwise have been. It is only right therefore that a clear system of checking entitlement to that reduction should be set up. The issue of certificates will therefore be helpful both to registration officers in their task of compiling and updating the community charges register and to students in demonstrating that they qualify for the 80 per cent. reduction in community charge liability.
Such certificates will simply provide evidence of the holder's status as a student. They will have no value or significance in any other context, and will be used only for the single and clearly defined purpose of giving evidence of a person's student status. They will not therefore be identity cards any more, for instance, than are matriculation cards or student railcards.
Earl Russell: In the hope of saving the Committee time by avoiding an unncessary speech perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is his understanding of this clause that universities are required to certify students' addresses.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall need to look at that point but I think that the answer is no as far as concerns addresses. I should like to check that and come back to the noble Earl.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not know whether the position is the same from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, as it is from that of the Minister, but it is reported in cols. 1296–97 of Hansard of 7th June 1988 that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that it was only the address which the university had that had to be provided to the registration officer and that there was no guarantee of accuracy at that point.
I accept that Clause 27 relates to the certificate. I continue to question the value of the certificate and whether it has any more value than the student railcard or anything else. If there is to be any checking it will necessitate that the registration officer goes to the university to see that the student is still there. That must be necessary.
We shall have a whole host of people wandering round the country with certification that they are a student. There are certain people in both England and Scotland, and probably in Wales too, who are quite adept at copying things. It may well be that those certificates will be more of a nuisance than they are worth.
The Minister did not reply at all to my major criticism that the certificate seemed to be a practically worthless piece of documentation. Why should the university issue a certificate—presumably in October at the beginning of the academic year—when a certain number of people will drop out and will still have certificates? There is no obligation on anybody to say that they have lost their status.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZP:
Page 143, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) In subsection (7)—

(a) after the word "shall" there shall be inserted ", notwithstanding that they are not otherwise liable under this Act for a personal community charge,"; and

(b) for the word "each" where it second occurs there shall be substituted the word "either".").

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments all relate either to liability for the community charge or to the compilation and up-dating of the community charges register. They are also all of an essentially minor and technical nature. While I am of course happy to explain the details of the changes which they make, I propose to concentrate my comments on one of the amendments which arguably makes a change of substance—namely, Amendment No. 194ZV.
Section 15 of the 1987 Act currently provides that where an entry in the register is amended, the registration officer should make a record of the entry before amendment and retain it for two years, and that that record may he inspected in the same way as the register may be inspected under Section 20 of the Act.
Amendment No. 194V makes three minor changes to the provisions of Section 15. First, it ensures that
462
a note of the date on which the record is made forms part of the record. Secondly, it provides that the provisions of Section 20 of the 1987 Act relating to inspection of the register, including any provisions prescribed under that section, apply, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed, to inspection of the record as they apply to inspection of the register. The power to prescribe modifications will give the Secretary of State the flexibility to provide that the publicly available parts of the record should be less widely available for inspection than the publicly available parts of the register if this appears to be appropriate for operational reasons.
Thirdly, the amendment provides that persons shall be entitled to obtain copies or certified copies of entries in the record in the same way that they can obtain copies of entries in the register. Like the right to obtain copies of entries in the register, however, this right will be restricted to copies of entries which the person in question is entitled to inspect. With those comments I commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am using these amendments as a vehicle in order to ask the Minister a question. Why is it necessary to retain the requirement that the Scottish register and therefore the Scottish "responsible person" needs to provide the dates of birth of everybody for whom that person is answering? I can imagine circumstances in which inquiring after the date of birth of one's mother-in-law might prove difficult. There is no such provision in the English Bill. Why does Scotland need to have dates of birth bandied about on registers and in the forms that need to be filled in?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, was in his place last Tuesday when I answered a Question that had a bearing on this subject. We remain of the view that this provision will make things easier for the registration officers, whose job is not an easy one, as I am sure the noble Lord understands. During the discussion on Tuesday my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy spoke of the Macleans and Mackenzies and Mackays, and of how difficult it would be to distinguish who was who in any particular family, village or community.
We still feel that there is a necessity for identification purposes to insert that provision. It will be especially important when one reaches the stage at which people are moving from one place to another, within and without a community. I know that the noble Lord is taking this opportunity to raise the matter and I am surprised that he has not raised it before. I know that he holds very strong views on the subject, which was debated at great length when the Scottish Bill came before this Chamber. However, I have to say that the Government have not changed their mind so far as concerns Scotland. I shall be very interested to observe the implementation of the Act when it is on the statute book as regards England and Wales.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Government must have discussed this matter with great seriousness at

463
some stage. Can the noble Lord explain why there should be more John Mackays living in the same house in Scotland than there will be John Smiths or John Bulls in the same house in England? There seems to be no logic in the argument.
In general, people who live in the same house tend to be related to each other. Basically they are fathers, sons and grandsons and mothers, daughters and grandaughters, all of whom have the same name. If in England there is no confusion with the names of John or Jenny Smith so that either may be a grandchild or a granny, why does that same situation cause great confusion in Scotland, Wales or anywhere else? There is no satisfactory answer to that question, yet the Government must have considered it very seriously because there was so much fuss made about it last year.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps I may be permitted to come back on the English and Welsh situation. It has been acknowledged that information about dates of birth could be collected at the discretion of registration officers in certain circumstances where it would aid in the identification of individuals—for example, where several people of the same name had been arrested at the same address. I imagine that this information will be of particular importance in Wales because of the number of Williamses and Edwardses who happen to live in the various close communities.
We could prolong this discussion. I know the noble Lord's views and so far as concerns the Scottish Bill they do not coincide with those of the Government. As I have said, I look forward with interest to see how the implementation of the legislation in England and Wales reflects in this area.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 194ZQ and 194ZR:
Page 143, line 14, at end insert—
("(1A) In subsection (4) for the words from ("and that liability") to the end there shall be substituted the words ("and where at any time two or more people are liable to pay the standard community charge under this subsection they shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the charge.".").
Page 143, line 47, at end insert—
("(6) After the said subsection (10) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(10A) Where at any time premises are let, sub-let or permitted to be occupied as mentioned in subsection (10) above to more than one person, only one standard community charge contribution in respect of the standard community charge payable in respect of any financial year shall be recovered in respect of the period of such lease, sub-lease or permission to occupy and such persons shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the contribution.".").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 194ZP. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZS:
Page 143, line 49, at end insert—
464
("1A) In subsection (3) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) below,".
(1B) After subsection 3 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) The registration officer shall not designate premises which are or form part of land designated by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1A to this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 194ZS on Tuesday in connection with Amendment No. 184D. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZT:
Page 143, line 49, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (5) for the words from ("and that liability") to the end there shall be substituted the words ("and where at any time two or more people are liable to pay the collective community charge under this subsection they shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the charge.".".).
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 194ZP. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZTA:
Page 144, line 15, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment consequential on Amendment No. 194ZU, which we discussed on Tuesday. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZU:
Page 144, line 16, at end insert ("and
(d) in paragraph (c) for the words "section 8(8)(c) of there shall be substituted the words "paragraph 11 of Schedule 1A to".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 194ZU and also Amendment No. 194ZV on Tuesday when we discussed Amendment No. 184D. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZV:
Page 145, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) in subsection (3)—

(a) after the word "entry" where it second occurs there shall be inserted the words "including a note of the date upon which the record is made": and

(b) for the words "the date on which it was made" there shall be substituted the words "that date".

(1B) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(4) The provisions of section 20 of this Act relating to the inspection of the register and the obtaining of copies of entries in the register (including such provisions as are prescribed under that section) shall apply, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed, to the inspection or obtaining of copies of a record made under subsection (3) above as they apply to the inspection of or obtaining copies of entries in the register.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZW:
Page 145, line 44, at end insert—
(". In section 17 of that Act (duties in relation to registration) in subsection (6) after the words ""responsible person"" there shall be inserted the words "in relation to any premises".").
The noble Lord said: We spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 194ZP. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZX:
Page 147, line 33, at end insert—
(". After Schedule 1 to that Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—
"Schedule 1A
PERSONAL COMMUNITY CHARGE: EXEMPTION
Prisoners
1.—(1) A person is exempt if he is a convicted person who is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence.
(2) "Convicted person" means a person found guilty of an offence (whether under the law of the United Kingdom or not) including a person found guilty by a court-martial under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957, or on a summary trial under section 49 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, or by a Standing Civilian Court established under the Armed Forces Act 1976, but not including a person dealt with by committal or other summary process for contempt of court.
(3) "Penal Institution" means a prison or other institution to which the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 applies.
(4) A person detained for default in complying with his sentence shall not be treated as detained in pursuance of the sentence (whether or not the sentence provided for detention in the event of default).
Visiting forces
2.—(1) A person is exempt if he has a relevant association with a visiting force.
(2) A visiting force, in relation to any particular time, is any body, contingent or detachment of the forces of a country to which any provision in Part I of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies at that time.
(3) A person has, at any particular time, a relevant association with a visiting force if he has at that time such an association within the meaning of that Part.
International headquarters and defence organisations
3.—(1) A person is exempt if he is a member of a headquarters or a dependant of such a member.
(2) A headquarters, in relation to any particular time, is a headquarters or organisation designated at that time by an Order in Council under section 1 of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964.
(3) A person is, at any particular time, a member of a headquarters if he is at that time such a member within the meaning of the Schedule to that Act.
(4) A person is, at any particular time, a dependant of such a member if he is at that time such a dependant within the meaning of that Schedule.
The severely mentally handicapped
4.—(1) A person is exempt if he is severely mentally handicapped.
(2) A person is severely mentally handicapped if he is suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another definition for the definition of severe mental handicap for the time being effective for the purposes of this paragraph.
Children
5. A person is exempt if another person is entitled to child benefit in respect of him.
Student
6.—(1) A person is exempt if he is undertaking a full-time course of education and he is resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland for the purpose of undertaking the course.
(2) Regulations made under this paragraph shall make provision for the purpose of determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether a person is undertaking a full-time course of education.
Members of religious communities
7.—(1) A person is exempt if—

(a) he is a member of a relevant religious community; and

(b) he has no income or capital of his own and is dependent on the community concerned for his material needs.

(2) A relevant religious community is a religious community whose principal occupation—

(a) is prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering, education, or any prescribed occupation; or

(b) consists of two or more of the occupations mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(3) A prescribed occupation is such occupation as may for the time being be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.
(4) In construing sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, income by way of pension in respect of a former employment is to be ignored.
Hospital patients
8.—(1) A person is exempt if he is a patient who is solely or mainly resident in a hospital.
(2) "Hospital" means a health service hospital within the meaning of section 108(1) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another definition for the definition of hospital for the time being effective for the purposes of this paragraph.
Patients in homes
9.—(1) A person is exempt if—

(a) he is solely or mainly resident in a residential care home, nursing home or hostel; and

(b) he is receiving care or treatment (or both) there.

(2) A residential care home is—

(a) a residential establishment provided and maintained by a local authority in respect of the functions under section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 transferred to them by section 1(4)(c) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; or

(b) a residential establishment to which Part IV of the said Act of 1968 applies; or

(c) residential accommodation provided and maintained by a local authority under section 7 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984,

where the sole or main function of the establishment or accommodation is to provide personal care or support, combined with board, to persons who are solely or mainly resident in the establishment or accommodation.
(3) A nursing home is—

(a) a nursing home within the meaning of section 10(2) of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 in respect of which a person is registered; or

(b) any premises in respect of which an exemption has been granted under section 6 or 7 of that Act.

(4) A hostel is an establishment in which residential accommodation is provided and which is—

(a) managed by a housing association registered for the time being in a register maintained under section 3 of the Housing Associations Act 1985; or

(b) operated other than on a commercial basis and in respect of which funds are provided wholly or in part by a Government department or agency or a local authority; or

(c) managed by a voluntary organisation,

where the sole or main function of the establishment is to provide personal care or support, combined with board, to persons who are solely or mainly resident in the establishment.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made under this paragraph substitute another definition for any definition of a residential care home, nursing home or hostel for the time being effective for the purpose of this paragraph.
(6) In this paragraph—
"personal care" includes the provision of appropriate help with physical and social needs; and
"support" means counselling or other help provided as part of a planned programme of care.
Residents of certain Crown land
10.—(1) A person is exempt if he is solely or mainly resident in Crown land which is designated under this paragraph.
(2) The Secretary of State may designate land under this paragraph if at the time of designation the first and second conditions are fulfilled.
(3) The first condition is that it is land in which there is any interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or to a Government department or to a Minister of the Crown or held on behalf of Her Majesty for the purposes of a Government department.
(4) The second condition is that in the Secretary of State's opinion the land is used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of individuals and in his opinion most or all of them—

(a) reside there for short periods; or

(b) should in the interests of national security not be registered as subject to a personal community charge.

(5) The Secretary of State—

(a) at any time may, and

(b) if the first or second conditions ceases to be fulfilled shall—

revoke a designation under this paragraph.
(6) A designation under this paragraph shall take effect at the beginning of the day following that on which it was made, and shall cease to have effect at the end of the day (if any) on which it is revoked.
Residents of certain other premises
11. A person other than a person such as is mentioned in section 8(4) of this Act is exempt if he is solely or mainly resident in premises—

(a) in respect of which the collective community charge is payable; or

(b) which are subject to non-domestic rates.".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment on Tuesday in connection with Amendment No. 184D. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): As an amendment to this amendment, I have to call Amendment No. 194ZXA.
[Amendment No. 194ZXA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 194ZX, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 194ZXB, as an amendment to Amendment No. 194ZX, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 194ZX agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZY:
Page 148, line 9, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(aa) in sub-paragraph (7)—

(i) after the words "amount due" there shall be inserted the words "in respect of any community charge (including any amount due in respect of the corresponding community water charge)"; and

(ii) for the words "rebate under or by virtue of section 24 of this Act from that amount or instalment" there shall be substituted the words "reduction in that amount or instalment in consequence of any rebate or community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986; and").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 194ZG. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZZ:
Page 148, line 11, at end insert—
("(5A) After the said paragraph (4) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
"Discounts and incentives
4A.—(1) Where a person enters into an agreement with a levying authority under sub-paragraph (10) of paragraph 4
468
above for payment of a community charge and the levying authority are satisfied that it would be of greater financial benefit to them if the payment were made under such an agreement than if it were made in accordance with sub-paragraphs (1) to (9) of that paragraph they may reduce the amount which the person is liable to pay by not more than such limit as is prescribed.
(2) The limit mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above may be calculated by reference to such percentage as the Secretary of State may prescribe.
4B.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a levying authority may, for the purpose of encouraging persons to enter into agreements under paragraph 4(10) above and without prejudice to the making of such reductions as are mentioned in paragraph 4A above, offer inducements of a financial or other nature (including inducements in the form of chances in a local lottery within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976).
(2) In any financial year the aggregate cost of any inducements offered under sub-paragraph (1) above taken with the cost of any reductions made under paragraph 4A shall not exceed the savings which the levying authority estimates will accrue from agreements made by them under paragraph 4(10) above,".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 194ZG. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 194ZZZ, as an amendment to Amendment No. 194ZZ, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 194ZZ agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZZA:
Page 148, line 12, after ("bodies)") insert—

("(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added the words "or of any of the authority's responsibilities as regards rebates or community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986"; and

(b) ").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 194ZZB, 194ZZC, 194ZZD, 194ZZE, 194ZZF and 194ZZG when discussing Amendment No. 194ZG. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment Nos. 194ZZB to 194ZZG.
Page 148, line 17, leave out ("the payment of such community charge or instalment") and insert—

("(a) the payment of any community charge or instalment;

(b) the payment of any community water charge; or

(c) the payment of any rebate or community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986").

Page 148, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(aa) in sub-paragraph (4) after the words "community charge" there shall be inserted the words "and community water charge"; and").
Page 148, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) In paragraph 7 (recovery of arrears of community charges)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for the words "(4) to (6)" there shall be substituted the words "(5) and (6)";

(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a) after the word "application" where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words—

"(i) have each been issued with a demand notice and that in each case the time limit for appealing against a demand notice under paragraph 3 above has expired without an appeal being made or that in a case where an appeal has been made it has been finally determined in favour of the levying authority; and

(ii)".").

Page 148, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) After paragraph 9 there shall be inserted the following—
"Use of information
10. The Secretary of State may prescribe that, in carrying out their functions under this Act, a levying authority, or a housing body exercising functions under paragraph 5 above, may use information which—

(a) is obtained under any other enactment; and

(b) does not fall within any prescribed description of information which cannot be used.".").

Page 148, leave out lines 29 to 36.
Page 148, line 36, at end insert—
("29. In Schedule 5 to that Act (water and sewerage charges) in paragraph 11 for the word "Schedule" there shall be substituted the words "Schedules Al and".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Having contained myself in silence since half past six I hope that I may be allowed to say a few words about the situation produced by Schedule 15. There is a page or so of amendments dealing with English law but eight pages of amendments relating to Scotland. Now, at Committee stage, we are given 13 more pages which are almost all government amendments in addition to those originally on the Marshalled List.
The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act was dealt with in the last Parliament. It has been known for a long time that legislation would be brought forward for England and Wales, and I am glad of that. However, I believe that we are entitled to an explanation as to why we have an almost unprecedented situation. There are 20 pages of amendments to Scottish law, many of which are very complex. I have admired the manner in which my noble friend Lord Sanderson has grappled with the remarkable list of amendments and also the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has applied his mind as a Scottish lawyer to try to discover what is involved. It is a great burden upon the Committee and I believe that a brief explanation is required. It is no use Members trying to find it in the explanatory memorandum to this complicated Bill. That is silent on the matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Of course my noble friend is right. No one could be more concerned about bringing forward so many amendments to the Bill at this stage. I shall give him two reasons which I gave on Tuesday when we started on this particular course. One reason welcomed on all sides of the Committee—I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was particularly pleased—is that the schedule puts together all the various exemptions so that we can see where we stand. That was required, and we felt it important to bring forward proposals at this stage, particularly in view of the situation of my noble friend Lord Caithness at tile moment in relation to exemptions and what may yet be decided by the Government.
The second point is that I remember, on becoming Minister and answering a question on the subject of this particular Bill as it affects England and Wales, I gave a clear undertaking that if measures were adopted in England and Wales which we would have
470
to replicate in Scotland, it would be done at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his complimentary remarks about myself. I was not certain whether I was swimming about at the bottom of a pool or really understanding what was happening in respect of this schedule. It is an example of the appalling nature of legislation that is going through at the moment. Anyone buying a copy of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act will, if this Bill is passed, have an Act that is wrong.
Lord Harvington: Will the noble Lord speak up; it is very difficult to hear him?
Lord Morton of Shuna: If someone buys a copy of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act, which was only published last May or June, they will buy an Act which, when this Bill goes through, will be wrong. A whole number of other Scottish Acts will also now be wrong. It is incredibly difficult for anyone not advised and kept up to date by civil servants to know what is the law. These incessant schedules make it very difficult for anyone to understand. It is difficult enough for a lawyer who is supposed to be supplied with details very quickly; it is quite impossible for any layman to try and understand what is the law. That is a very serious problem which the Government have done a lot to make worse.
Earl Russell: I am also very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said what he did. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, replied to the point with dignity and care. However, this is not the first time that it has happened. We have had before us two large Bills which have grown very remarkably in the telling—and I mean that in the most literal sense of the word. The practice of adding to Acts is one that has increased, is increasing and should be diminished.
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 136 [Judicial review]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 194A:
Page 75, line 11, leave out ("as a simple contract debt").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple, technical drafting amendment to clarify the terminology used in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This is really a Scottish lawyer asking for an explanation. Why does it make it simpler to take out those words? What is, "A simple contract debt" in English law and what does it mean? Why is the Bill simpler if those words are omitted?
Lord Hesketh: I shall have to arrange to communicate with the noble Lord. As he knows, I am not fully conversant with the finer points of the law.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may presume to help though I am becoming a very rusty old lawyer. From my student days I have known that a simple contract is one that is not under seal.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 137 agreed to.
Clause 138 [Separate administration in England and Wales]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 194B:
Page 75, line 43, after ("State") insert ("or the Treasury").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 194B, for the convenience of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendment No. 194C. These amendments give the Treasury the same flexibility as is open to the Secretary of State in respect of subordinate legislation. Amendment No. 194B gives the Treasury power to make different provisions for England and Wales and Amendment No. 194C gives the Treasury power to make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to be necessary or expedient.
In practice these will apply only to the power in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 7 to uprate the NNDR multiplier by less than the RPI, which is the sole power exercisable by the Treasury. It is sensible for this power to be consistent with the order-making powers open to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 139 and 140 agreed to.
Clause 141 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 194C:
Page 76, line 47, after ("State") insert ("or the Treasury (as the case may be)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 77, line 10, after ("Schedule 6") insert ("or section 122").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to bring into the scope of affirmative resolution not only Schedule 6 to the Bill but also Clause 122. That clause is a peculiarly opaque part of the Bill. It appears to say that whenever there is a reference to rating in any Act the Secretary of State may by order vary the reference to rating to a reference to something else. I believe I summarise it too simply but I do not believe it is anything less wide than that.
The problem with Clause 122 is precisely that it is the most extreme extension of regulation-making powers of secondary legislation that one can see anywhere even in this Bill, which is conspicuous for its reliance on secondary legislation. We let it go through when we were dealing with the regulation itself in anticipation that the way to handle it would be to restrict the willingness of the Secretary of State to use the very wide powers which he has under Clause 122 by saying that he has to ask for an affirmative resolution. If anybody thinks that this might clog up Parliament, I would suggest that the Secretary of State should do so at regular and frequent intervals by bringing in all of the amendments that he wishes to be made to Clause 122 in an indigestible lump. In that way he might succeed in deceiving and bypassing the Opposition, not all of whom are as conscientious as my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. I think that on examination it will be found that the powers given under Clause 122 are very wide and that it is desirable, if not that they
472
should be subject to the affirmative resolution, that there should be some better indication of what they mean—I am not asking for a long speech—and why it is that they are justified. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 122 is necessary because various elements of the present general rating system are used for a wide variety of purposes unconnected with rating. Statutory provisions are found in both public and private legislation. The abolition of domestic rates means that the majority of these provisions will need to be changed. In some cases the amendment will be relatively simple, substituting reference to some other relevant factor—for example, market value—for reference to rateable value. In other cases a more extensive recasting of the existing provisions will be needed.
Clause 122 is concerned with those cases where rateable value is used as a reference point in other legislation. Examples include the ceilings for Rent Act protection and the right to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Acts; home loss payments where property is compulsorily purchased for development; and the valuation of rent free accommodation for income tax purposes.
Clause 122 is in effect a fall-back power which will enable essential changes to be made to non-rating legislation where this would cease to work once one could no longer rely on the assumption that every property will have a rateable value. The power to prescribe necessary changes has, on the one hand, to be broad enough to cover all the rating factors employed and the variety of their uses, but on the other to provide sufficient safeguards so that the policy intention of the legislation cannot be radically altered.
With this background in mind, I now turn to Amendment No. 195 of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The effect of this amendment would be to impose the affirmative resolution procedure on all orders under Clause 122. It is our view that the negative resolution procedure provides a perfectly adequate level of parliamentary control. It is a procedure which applies to the vast majority of statutory instruments under all legislation and which will apply to the great majority of those which will be laid under the powers in this Bill.
There are at present only two powers which require the affirmative resolution procedure, that in paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 which provides for the determination of rateable values for the public utilities by formula rather than by conventional methods, and the power to under-index the NNDR contained in paragraph 5 of Schedule 7. We have also given a commitment that the powers in Clause 49 and the new clause following it, which provide for the non-domestic transitional arrangements, will also be subject to that procedure, and we shall be tabling an appropriate amendment at Report stage.
It is entirely appropriate that these instruments, which will materially affect the level of rates paid on non-domestic hereditaments, or classes of hereditament, should be debated both in the House and in another place. But I can see no reason why the power in Clause 122, which is of course limited to enabling the Secretary of State to make necessary consequential adjustments to preserve the effect of

473
existing legislation, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have already consulted the appropriate organisations on our proposals for adjusting provisions in housing and landlord and tenant legislation which refer to rates and rateable values, and there will be consultation in other cases too.
Apart from the few major areas where substantial amendments will be required, there will be a large number of minor and local amendments. It would in the Government's view be unjustified to subject each of these to the affirmative resolution procedure. Where a particular set of regulations raises issues of wider concern, it will of course be open to any noble Lord to table a prayer against them and so give us an opportunity to debate the issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I always knew that this Bill was a foolish and reckless venture and this clause proves it. I am only given pause for thought by the fact that the next Labour Government will have to repeal it and replace it by a more just system of local government finance. I imagine that we will suffer the same difficulties in implementation that the Government are finding now. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 195A:
Page 77, line 15, at end insert—
("(8) An order under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 below shall, if apart from the provisions of this subsection it would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly technical but not uninteresting amendment. It relates to orders made under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Bill, a provision which has I think not so far figured in the Committee's deliberations. That paragraph is concerned with what is commonly known as formula rating. This is a method of rating applying mainly to statutory undertakers, especially those with national networks such as the railways and the electricity industry.
It has long been recognised that individual signal-boxes or sub-stations cannot be valued by conventional means since no one would rent them in isolation. Some formula therefore has to be arrived at—in conclusion with the industries concerned and the local authority associations—for putting a value on the network as a whole so that the industries concerned can pay their fair share towards local authority revenue. This process has to be carried out afresh for each revaluation, and consultations on the new formulae to operate from 1990 are already well advanced.
In the past, however, it has been thought fit to enshrine not only the principles of these formulae but the detailed methodology and in some cases the resulting values in primary legislation. Nearly a quarter of the General Rate Act is taken up with these provisions, although only one man in the Department of the Environment and a few dozen in the outside world ever need to read them. Their presence in the General Rate Act serves little purpose except to add weight and cost.
In this Bill, we have therefore provided for effect to be given to all these formulae in regulations under Schedule 6, paragraph 3. This simplifies the Bill itself and will greatly simplify the process of keeping the formula values up to date. Arguably, however, the power is a rather broad one, which would enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State simply to determine the rate bills for these industries—many of which are now in the private sector—by whatever means he felt most appropriate. In practice, we intend to adopt a coherent approach to all the industries concerned and to consult very thoroughly. But it seemed right nevertheless that the exercise of such potentially wide-ranging power merited the fuller parliamentary scrutiny given by the affirmative resolution procedure.
There is just one catch to this. Whereas there are no rules as to hybridity relating to the parliamentary handling of negative instruments, once an instrument becomes affirmative it also, if it makes different provision for different individuals or bodies, then becomes hybrid and subject to the special procedure (under Private Bill Standing Orders 216 and 216A) involving reference to the Hybrid Instruments Committee and then to a Select Committee and the hearing of petitions from those concerned.
There is no doubt that orders under Schedule 3, paragraph 3, will treat different bodies differently in a technical sense. There will be one rateable value for British Rail, another for British Gas, and so forth. But they will do so in accordance with a consistent set of principles. Moreover, there will already have been very thorough consultation with the industries concerned. It therefore seems to us that this is a case where the full panoply of the hybrid instruments procedure is not justified, and Amendment 195A therefore specifies that it shall not apply.
Perhaps to pre-empt noble Lord's questions, I should say that such a provision is far from being unprecedented. A quick glance at Erskine May offers as precedents Section 1 of the Manoeuvres Act 1958, paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government Act 1972, Section 3(11) of the Water Act 1973 and Section 3(7) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1974. The second of those measures concerned the determination of the boundaries of the new local government areas, a matter of far more public controversy than formula rating. So, although it is undoubtedly a little unusual for a government Bill to seek to circumscribe the operation of the Standing Orders of the Chamber, I trust that the Committee will accept that it is done with the best of motives. Noble Lords will have ample scope to consider these instruments when they come before them for affirmative resolution as required by Clause 141(6). I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I view this with a certain amount of misgiving. Private Bill Committee Standing Orders are an important constituent of liberty. They restrain the bringing of the full statutory juggernaut to bear on a particular private individual, which I think is necessary.
I understand why the proposal is put before us on this occasion. I think that I follow the reasoning behind it. It causes me more misgiving rather than

475
less, however, that the Minister says that he can find a considerable number of precedents. Can the Minister give me an assurance that he does not mean to make a habit of this?
Lord Renton: I had some doubt about the amendment when I first read it. However, having heard my noble friend's explanation, I feel that it is justified. Indeed, it is justified for a reason beyond that which he gave. The question of whether there is a case for hybridity is unfortunately very uncertain and sometimes has had to be referred to the authorities of this House or—less often—of another place. It may be to the advantage of people who think that their interests are affected to know that they should not waste their time and money trying to go for hybridity. We should not lightly deprive people of the right to appear before a Select Committee of either House and to adduce evidence when their legitimate interests are at stake. We should do so only for good reason. I believe that on this occasion sound reasons have been given.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may put at rest the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I assure him that we shall not make a habit of it. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Renton for providing an additional reason why this is a good amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 141, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 142 [Interpretation: authorities]:
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 77, line 33, at end insert—
("(2A) A waste disposal authority is an authority established at any time by an order under section 10(1) of the Local Government Act 1985.
(2B) A combined police authority is a combined police authority established at any time by an amalgamation scheme under the Police Act 1964.
(2C) A combined fire authority is a fire authority constituted at any time by a combination scheme under the Fire Services Act 1947.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143 [Interpretation: financial years etc.]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 77, line 44, leave out ("1990") and insert ("1991").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 197, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 198 to 202. The purpose of Amendment No. 197 is to delay the operation of the Bill by one year and to extend the transitional period by agreement between the Secretary of State and the local authority associations. In a period of less than two years, the local authorities will need not only to be in place but to have working successfully much local government bureaucracy and machinery. They will need computer hardware and software, which must be
476
purchased. New staff will have to be recruited and trained and new office accommodation will be needed.
This is against the background of the manner in which over many years the Government have frustrated the ability of local government to incur capital expenditure. We know that the Government have made available to local authorities £25 million for the transitional period. Is the Minister satisfied that that sum is sufficient adequately to meet the needs of local government in gearing up for the transitional period? We do not think that it is. Has any provision been made in the Government's expenditure plans for local authorities in 1988 and 1989 to cover revenue expenditure directly related to the transitional period?
Two matters are covered by transitional arrangements. First, there are the grant safety nets which will cushion the impact of the introduction of the poll tax on domestic taxpayers; and secondly, in inner London domestic rates and the poll tax will run together. The Minister is well aware that we take a dim view of that additional vindictive and petty burden placed on the inner London authorities. We want the transitional period to be delayed by one year. That would be welcome in local government. We wonder what reasons the Government may have for not allowing this to be delayed by one year. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The Government gave a firm commitment before the last general election that the community charge would be introduced in England and Wales on 1st April 1990. Nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said has given me any reason to believe that it would be right to go back on that commitment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Did the noble Lord say that the Government gave a firm commitment before the election that the community charge would be in place by 1990? I should very much like to have the reference for that, because the Government did not make up their minds on the poll tax as the alternative to domestic rates until after the election.
10 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: We gave a commitment. In the process of formulating that commitment we decided on a date. The noble Lord may not like it but I hope to be able to give the reasons why we believe we are right to carry on with that date.
Local authorities and central government will have a period of nearly two years to continue planning for the implementation of the new system, building on the valuable preliminary work that has already been undertaken. I have every reason to believe that we shall be more than ready for the sending out of the first community charge bills in the spring of 1990.
I should also remind the Committee that the community charge system will come into effect in Scotland on 1st April 1989. How could we justify deferring the introduction in England and Wales until 1991 when north of the Border the change will occur as planned in 1989? I do not believe we can justify such a proposal. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 197, 198, 199 and 202 if should they be pressed by the noble Lord.

477
If accepted, they would result in the Government reneging on an election commitment, letting down the Scots and denying the people of England and Wales the benefits of a fairer, more accountable system of local government finance. That would be quite unacceptable.
Amendments Nos. 200 and 201 would empower the Secretary of State to extend the period during which residual domestic rating applies and the transitional grant safety net is applied under Part VI of the Bill. In view of the support given on Monday by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to the removal of Part IV of the Bill, I am surprised to find the Labour Party supporting an amendment which would extend the period of dual running.
The amendments would produce unacceptable uncertainty for all authorities. As I have said, the safety net grant will be settled before 1st April 1990. It will set out the safety net adjustments for all authorities for each of the transitional years. It will mean that everyone is absolutley certain, right from the beginning of the new system, what the effect of the safety net will be and when it will disappear. The same applies to residual rates. Once the multiplier has been fixed, everyone will know that it will taper to nothing over four years. If we were able to decide, in say 1992, to change our minds and lengthen the transitional period, we should be introducing a new source of instability and confusion. That would be quite wrong.
The Government have already given a great deal of thought to the question of the length of the transitional period. Members of the Committee may recall that the 1986 Green Paper proposed that domestic rates should be phased out over a period of up to 10 years in England and six in Wales and that the safety net could last indefinitely. We listened to the views expressed about those proposals, which were that such a transition period was too long and, for the safety net, not specific enough. We responded by proposing a fixed four-year period for the transition in respect of both rates and the safety net, where applicable.
As regards costs, we are committing £25 million for 1988–89 and we will be announcing shortly what will be available for next year. The commitment to introduce the community charge was in the election manifesto and followed the 1986 Green Paper, which proposed a starting date of 1990. We have made it clear on every occasion since 1986 that 1990 was the target date. We believe that this represents a fair balance between the need for reform and the need to give individuals time to adjust.
Lord Trafford: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would consider another aspect which bears on the proposal to delay the introduction of the charge for a year. I think it was on Tuesday that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, pointed out that over the year between 1989–90 there would be a net emigration of nurses from Scotland to England. It must be said, of course, that many of us in England would be grateful should this happen, because it would solve the English nursing problem. However, although the further delay of a year would mean another year in which this problem might be
478
helped in England—the way you look at this problem will depend on whether you are English or Scottish—it would certainly cause a severe complication from Scotland's point of view.
Lord Renton: I am sure that my noble friend was right to resist the amendments. Indeed, he has given very strong reasons for so doing. However, before we leave the matter I wonder whether I may draw the attention of all Members of the Committee to Clause 143(2). If ever there was an example of meaningless repetition it is in that subsection.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My heart bleeds for the problems which the Government have created by dealing separately with Scotland. The Minister has pointed out that he intensely dislikes the inequity between the treatment of Scotland and England; and yet it was the Government themselves who decided to treat Scotland separately, and earlier than England. They cannot have it both ways. The amendments seek to respond to the words that we have received from the local authority associations.
I acknowledge and accept what the Government have said about firm commitments. However, nothing is written in tablets of stone. If in fact they are saying that they never change anything and that they always carry out every dot and comma of the election manifesto, then you could have fooled me. I think what they are really saying is that this is a piece of the manifesto which they intend to carry out because they have a mandate for it. Nevertheless, there are many times when they do not have a mandate but they somehow manage to justify what they do. Moreover, there are many times when they change the mandate in the light of circumstances.
Therefore what the Minister is saying in effect is, "This is what we said a year ago and no matter what the circumstances are or what pleas are made, we intend to get on with it". As I have sought to point out, the Minister has told us—confirming what I told the Committee—that an allocation of moneys to get ready for the change has been made. However, he has not been able to tell us how much they will allocate for the year. He used the word "shortly". Of course I acknowledge that there are times when such information is not available to him. Nevertheless, local government is very worried indeed about its inability to keep to the Government's timetable. I appreciate the care with which the Minister has sought to justify his inability and unwillingness to accede to the request of local government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 198 to 202 not moved.]
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Interpretation: other provisions]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 78, line 17, at end insert—
("(5A) In this Act "population" including "relevant population", "aggregate of relevant populations", population falling "within such description as is specified in Regulations", or however described so long as the context allows, shall be the Registrar General's estimate as certified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act and other relevant enactments, orders, or regulations.

479
(5B) The Secretary of State shall inform all local authorities, the local authority associations, and such other persons and bodies as he considers appropriate of all estimates of population made by the Registrar General under subsection (5A) above.
(5C) The parties listed in subsection (5B) above may make representations in writing to the Registrar General as to the accuracy of any estimate of population made under subsection (5A) above and the Registrar General shall respond in writing within one month.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to use the Registrar General's estimate of population where a measure of population is specified under the provisions of the Bill and to permit local authorities to make representations as to the accuracy of any estimates.
In Clause 76, a measure of population is referred to for apportioning precepts of precepting authorities over the appropriate charging authorities. In Schedule 8, paragraph 9, a measure of population is used to apportion the national non-domestic rate pool between charging authorities. The use of population as a measuring rod or a yardstick is established. We do not quibble with that concept.
The amendment seeks to provide an opportunity to challenge the estimate. I shall take the Minister through an example. In Westminster, on the 1987–88 figures there is a forecast poll tax of £396. The adult population is 150,000. Let us assume an evasion rate of 10 per cent. of the people on the register. That amounts to 15,000. The number on the poll tax register paying the poll tax will therefore be 135,000. The shortfall in the contribution from the NNDR pool will be £233 times £15,000, which is £3,495,000. That shortfall is equivalent to £26 per adult extra on the poll tax for those who pay. If the Minister can satisfy us that there will be opportunities or a method or process whereby the estimate can be looked at again, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: However good the motives of the amendment may be—and they seem to be reasonable—we do not need it. There must he some limit to the extent to which we write into the Bill matters which take place in the normal course of administration. I should expect the Government to resist the amendment because it is unnecessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I can help the Minister. If the Registrar General's figures appear to be punitive but there is a means whereby they can be adjusted, I would agree with the noble Lord. The amendment is moved so as to achieve equity and fairness. If the Minister can tell me that errors in estimates of population can be taken into account, there is no need for the amendment.
Lord Renton: All that the noble Lord has described is something which one would expect to be done in the normal process of consultation between government departments, the Registrar General's department and the local authorities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I will hear what the Minister says.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would permit any of those who receive notification of these estimates to make representations as to their accuracy and would require the Registrar General to respond within one month. But no specific provision is needed to empower an authority to write to the Registrar General and say, "Excuse me, I think there has been an error". Authorities are and will be free to do just that. I know that they raise problems with the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys when they believe that their population has been wrongly assessed. This new provision is quite unecessary. I pass over the requirement for a response within one month. We all wish for a speedy resolution to problems and would like to see queries dealt with without delay. But in practice there are bound to be queries which cannot be handled within that time for a number of reasons.
To sum up, Amendment No. 203 is in part unnecessary and in the remainder unhelpful or misconceived. I do not think it will assist local authorities in any way and it will not assist the Government in reaching a view on the right basis for population. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the Minister can help us. Will be tell us what measure of population the Government intend to use? We have sought to insert into the Bill the Registrar General's estimate of population. When I look at Clause 76, for instance, I am puzzled about what basis of population the Government intend to use. The noble Lord's honourable friend in another place, Mr. Ian Grist, said on 8th March that he understood that English authorities would be receiving consultation papers shortly. That is almost three months ago. The consultation paper on how to make progress on this matter has not been received. It is no good the Minister being bland about it and simply ignoring what repercussions this could have. It is possible for this to have a serious effect and I invite the Minster to help me.
Lord Hesketh: Whenever the term "population" is used in this Bill it should mean the Registrar General's estimate as certified by the Secretary of State. The Registrar General's estimate is the one that we use at present for assessing the need to spend. The estimates of population in each area are the most soundly based consistent set of population data available. It may be that they will be the best figures to use in the new system also, but, as I said, no decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister makes an interesting point about what should happen and says that no decisions have yet been taken. I accept what he says about the absence of a decision. I accept too that it would be normal to assume that those data are the best, but "It ain't necessarily so". The Minister may look at some other measuring rod, and there may be valid reasons why these are not the best data. However, what the Minister has said on the record

481
will enable those outside the House to draw conclusions as to whether what is happening is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 [Power to make supplementary provision]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 78, line 34, at end insert—
("(6) Any Order to be made by the Secretary of State under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the coining into force of this act and in February of each succeeding year he shall list all the orders or regulations he intends to make in the following two financial years under the provisions of this Act and specify for each of them the following details—

(a) the estimated date the draft orders or regulations are to be published,

(b) a summary of the purpose of the orders or regulations.

(c) the persons or bodies to be consulted (generally to include the local authority associations),

(d) the estimated periods for consultation,

(e) the estimated period for the Secretary of State to consider responses to consultations,

(f) the estimated date for making the order or regulation,

(g) the latest date by which the order or regulation should be made to enable all local authorities a reasonable time to make the necessary preparations to discharge their functions rising from the order or regulations and this Act.

(7) If in the opinion of the Secretary of State any order or regulation shall not be made by the date specified in subsection (6)(g) above he shall forthwith make a further order amending the details contained in the original order under subsection (6) above and specify any necessary amendments to this Act as to dates and other prescriptions that are incidental thereto.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The purpose of the amendment is to invite the secretary of State formally to establish a timetable for the consideration of secondary legislation. The impact of secondary legislation can be very great indeed. Secondary legislation gives effect to the primary legislation and therefore there is much to be done. When this Bill reached the House of Lords it contained 58 clauses or schedules under which separate sets of regulations can be made covering 508—I repeat 508—separate matters for decision, in addition to 25 matters to be covered by orders. Further government amendments to the Bill have already been made in the Chamber. The amendment is pretty blunt. It states that it is essential that a timetable for secondary legislation is established and regularly updated.
I hope that the Minister will act as democratically and as equitably as possible and that consultations will take place before the secondary legislation is produced. I simply repeat what those at the sharp end of local government have told us. If the legislation is as wide and as deep as that, there will need to be a lot of consultation. Even the timetable that I am suggesting could very well be drawn up in consultation with local government. If the Minister can satisfy those outside the Chamber that they will at least have some opportunity to do what the law will require them to do, that will be a big help. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I do hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment. It seems to me to be creating quite unnecessary bureaucratic effort. The reasons given for it by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would need—if one had time at this late hour of the night—to be analysed in order to test them. Many of the 500 or so matters the noble Lord mentions which are to be covered by regulations will come into one regulation. I do not know how many separate regulations there will be. I have already, by implication, complained that there will be too many. But let the Minister get on with the job; let him not waste time in unnecessary bureaucracy. I hope that my noble friend will advise the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I understand the concern that lies behind the amendment. I hope that I can put the minds of Members of the Committee at rest. We recognise that much of the burden of implementing this legislation will fall on local authorities and that much of the detail of the legislation will be set out in regulations. It is in no one's interest to spring any surpises and it is not our intention to do so.
In most cases the purpose and the extent of the regulations that are needed are well telegraphed on the face of the Bill. Two examples are Clause 47, which deals with the alterations to non-domestic rating lists, and Clause 103, which provides for regulations about funds. Where it is appropriate to do so we shall consult the relevant local authority associations about the regulations. In other cases we have already given specific undertakings to the Committee that local authorities will be consulted about the regulations we propose; for example, in the case of Clause 76, which deals with the definition of relevant population for the purpose of an authority's precept. But to impose a specific duty, as the amendment seeks to do, would be too onerous and might even be unhelpful.
The amendment might prevent, for example, an unforeseen need for regulations to be met or regulations to be made earlier than originally envisaged. Nor would the amendment, as drafted, enable draft regulations to be redrafted or withdrawn following representations from local government unless the date for them to be made was delayed, although I am sure that that was not the intention. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for pointing out that the amendment would create a great deal more bureaucratic work. In the light of the assurances I have given that the purposes of the orders and regulations are already clear from the Bill, that we shall consult local authority associations on them where appropriate, and that we shall as far as possible indicate the likely timings of the regulations, I hope that the Committee will accept that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In his very last words the Minister gave an assurance. Local authorities will have an indication of the likely timetable that will be worked through. That is all they want. They are not interfering with the manner in which the Government and their advisers seek to give effect to the Bill. What

483
they want is some idea, not of getting ready for it—they will get ready for it when the Bill receives Royal Assent and they know what is to befall them—but of how they can prepare themselves properly, allocate staff and so on.
When the record is read it will be seen that what the Minister said in his last 10 or 12 words is broadly what this amendment seeks. I am very grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clauses 146 and 147 agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 149, line 13, at end insert—
("1922 c. 51 Allotments Act 1922 Section 16").
The noble Baroness said: When the subject of the amendment was first put to me I wondered what allotments had to do with the poll tax. However, after eight days in Committee, I am no longer surprised that anything has something to do with the poll tax. The amount that any local authority which is an allotment authority—that could be a district, parish or community council—can spend on the provision of allotments is limited in Section 16 of the Allotments Act 1922. It is limited to the total of what the council gets by way of receipts from allotments which it lets, plus such an amount as would be produced by a rate in its area of 0.8p. That is the only such limit on a specific local authority function. It is a relic of a much older way of considering the conferment and financing of functions.
I am told that it was thought probable that the limit would be abolished in the 1972 Act when other older legislation vanished in the Local Government Act of that year. However, it was thought that the allotments law would soon be codified. Therefore, no interim changes were made in that Act. The law is now outdated and the only present-day effect is to inhibit those authorities with limited resources from making appropriate provision for allotments when both the authority and those who want the allotments would like to have them.
The limit will have to be expressed in a different way once the community charge has come into force. It is an arbitrary limit, and because the cost of allotment provision in an area bears no relation to the rate of product or any other factors I hope that the Minister will agree that the easiest and most sensible way to answer the question of what we do with a 0.8p rate limit when we no longer have rates is to abolish it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take the amendment seriously. I say that not only because I love repealing schedules and am sorry that this one is not much longer but also because I know that the noble Baroness shares with me an interest and concern in allotments. It was in the county in which we both live and have done for many years that the first and largest statutory
484
smallholdings and allotments estate was to be found. If it be a fact that the law is obsolete, I hope that it will be added to the repeal schedule whether or not, technically speaking, that is the right place for it.
Lord Hesketh: I am happy to say that we accept the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. We have for some time regarded the provision of allotments as a matter for individual local authorities to decide. They are in the best position to assess what proportion of their resources they can allocate for allotment purposes and, in the light of local circumstances, whether they can justify expenditure in excess of the receipts from allotments.
We believe that the present limitation serves no useful purpose. Unfortunately, however, I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. Schedule 16 can only include legislation which is expressly repealed in the Bill or as a necessary consequence of the Bill's provisions. These amendments do not meet those criteria.
The existing limitation provision will however become unworkable when general rates are abolished and will require amendment. Clause 145 of the Bill provides a power to make such consequential amendments by amending, repealing or revoking provisions in other legislation. I can therefore assure the noble Baroness that when we come to make orders under that provision we shall give effect to the point of her amendments which is to leave the matter of allotment spending to local decision.
Lord Renton: Could my noble friend be a sport and put it into the repealing schedule?
Lord Hesketh: I am rather too insignificant to be a sport.
Baroness Stedman: It is pleasing to come to one of the final amendments in this great schedule of amendments we have had over eight days on such a happy note from the Minister. I am delighted, as I know that people who asked me to look after this point will be.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 150, line 20, at end insert—

("1947 c. 42. Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947.

In Section 5 in subsection (3) the words "from the valuation roll or otherwise known", and the words from "Service of a notice" to the end of the subsection.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 206B to 206E:
Page 150, line 20, at end insert—

("1975 c. 30.

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975.

Schedule 1.

1978 c. 4

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1978.

Section 2.

1980 c. 45.

Water (Scotland) Act 1980.

In Schedule 10, the entry relating to Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975.

1981 c. 23.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981.

Section 10.

1981 c. 38.

British Telecommunications Act 1981.

Section 36.

1982 c. 23.

Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 23.

1984 c. 31.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984.

In Schedule 2, paragraph 18.

1986 c. 44.

Gas Act 1986.

In Schedule 7, paragraph 21.").

Page 150, line 36, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 17(5) the words "in respect of any premises in his registration area".").

Page 151, line 5, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 30(2).").

Page 151, line 7, column 3, at end insert—

("and in paragraph 7, in sub-paragraph (2) the words "Subject to subparagraph (4) below", and sub-paragraph (4)".).

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 148 to 150 agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 208:
Line 10, after second ("to") insert ("rates and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 184A, 184B, and 184C, to which the House agreed last Tuesday. Those amendments altered the current law on certain matters of rating and valuation. The inclusion of those amendments in the Bill has extended its coverage slightly, and the change which this amendment seeks to make to the long title reflects this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.